IHRA-motion MP’s CLP votes overwhelmingly to support Labour code

Earlier this week, Louise Ellman was one of two Labour MPs expected to propose a motion at the weekly PLP (parliamentary Labour party) meeting. The motion was ultimately deferred until early September, but constitutes an attempt to manoeuvre Labour’s NEC (National Executive Committee) into abandoning Labour’s Code of Conduct.

That code endorses the IHRA’s (International Holocaust Remembrance Association) ‘working definition’ of antisemitism – which describes itself as not legally binding, making it unusable as a party rule without clarifications – but, as the ‘working’ title invites, it builds on, clarifies and reinforces it by elaborating on some of the ‘examples’ that experts, including the working definition’s original creator, agree can be used to inhibit legitimate criticism of the behaviour of the Israeli government.

In a week when the Israeli Knesset passed laws that even Israeli supporters have condemned as racist, such clarification should be welcome.

Ms Ellman has also appeared on national television this week to attack the code, saying that many MPs “referred to their own constituents” when voicing their objections during the PLP meeting.

ellman sky.png
Liverpool Riverside MP Louise Ellman speaking to Sky News earlier this week

Some of those constituents, including Jewish members, had their say tonight on Labour’s Code of Conduct at the monthly meeting of the Liverpool Riverside CLP (constituency Labour party) of which Ms Ellman is the MP, where a motion supporting Labour’s Code of Conduct had been tabled.

Members voted by more than three to one in support of the motion and therefor in support of Labour’s code.

Ms Ellman is said to have voted on that motion but to have declined to participate in any subsequent votes.

The SKWAWKBOX needs your support. This blog is provided free of charge but depends on the generosity of its readers to be viable. If you can afford to, please click here to arrange a one-off or modest monthly donation via PayPal. Thanks for your solidarity so this blog can keep bringing you information the Establishment would prefer you not to know about.

If you wish to reblog this post for non-commercial use, you are welcome to do so – see here for more.


  1. Despite all the recent MSM broadcast coverage on this subject I have yet to see or hear anyone from those that object to the new Code of Conduct go through a line by line comparison of the 2 codes and explain exactly why they find the wording of the Labour Code so objectionable. Explain exactly why they think that Labour’s version weakens the code. The best they seem to be able to come up with is ‘it’s different’. I wonder why they always seem to sidestep any questions about what precisely they abject to,

  2. …”but to have declined to participate in any subsequent votes.”

    Just goes to show how ubiquitous AS is in Labour… when 75% of her own CLP supporters are clearly rabid antisemites ‘~’

    What other explanation could there be?

  3. This is great news. Could this mean she has effectively been put on notice by her CLP?

  4. The greatest mistake Labour has made is in having anything to do with the IHRA definition which is NOT international and it’s not even certain is supported by the majority of Jews.

    There is a perfectly concise and acceptable definition of AS in the Oxford English dictionary which is probably good enough for most people.

    In the main, apart from evangelical Christians, the people who support the IHRA definition are Jews from the Zionist section of Judaism which believes in the colonisation of Palestine by people who have no right to be there.

    The IHRA definition, which attempts to silence criticism of Israel and Zionism, is totally incompatible with Socialism, therefore Labour should not associate itself with groups such as the JLM and the LFI who by definition support subjugation of Palestinians and have great difficulty in being able to discern right from wrong.

    1. You could well be right Jack but there was a lot of pressure from the RW LFI members to go down the IHRA route.

      It is more than a little ironic though that the Labour Party’s disciplinary procedures descended into acrimonious farce and the implementation of the Chakrabarti report was delayed under McNicol when the RW had control and now, as soon as Corbyn supporters have control of the NEC the RW have done nothing but snipe at the party’s efforts to sort out a problem which they, at best, actively ignored.

      Corbyn and the NEC are being criticised by the RW for taking the steps to sort out the mess that they left/created.

  5. ‘Ms Ellman has also appeared on national television this week to attack the code, saying that many MPs “referred to their own constituents” when voicing their objections during the PLP meeting.’

    Won’t be on TV saying that again. Wonder what the next frivolous point of attack’s gonna be, and where it’ll come from?

    My guess is there won’t be one from ellman as she’s been thoroughly discredited. (Not that the MSM will inform the general public of this)

    Wonder if berger fancies another pop…

  6. it’s all a fabricated stick with which to beat Jeremy Corbyn. Two Jewish organisations – JPR & CST – own research *Antisemitism in contemporary Great Britain* found that: “The very left-wing, and, in fact, all political groups located on the left, are no more antisemitic than the general population. This finding may come as a surprise to those who maintain that in today’s political reality, the left is the more serious, or at least, an equally serious source of antisemitism, than the right.” p.64 https://cst.org.uk/public/data/file/7/4/JPR.2017.Antisemitism%20in%20contemporary%20Great%20Britain.pdf

    1. Only skimmed the conclusion but didn’t find any comparison between anti-Jewish and anti-Muslim attitudes among the general population, or between each other – specifically, anti-Muslim views among Jews.
      14% strong, c50% weak antisemitic (anti-Jewish) views among Muslims was quoted.

      I’ve no figures but strongly suspect Muslims suffer greater racism in the UK from the general population.

      There may have been numbers of victims of racist violence suffered in the UK by each religious group quoted in the report but I didn’t find that either.

      What I suspect will not have been there is a figure for killings of Jews and Muslims each committed by the other in Israel, in the UK or worldwide.

      In fact no mention (that I found) of any attempt to differentiate or quantify the effects of racism/antisemitism on victims – which clearly may run from hurt feelings to death.

      So let’s hear how many Jews have been killed by other religious groups and how many members of other religious groups have been killed by Jews please?

      And then stop equating hurt feelings with deaths?

      1. To anyone who responds, “six million.”
        Stop using that obscenity for political capital today.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: