Lib Dems avoidance of tricky subjects illustrates spinelessness in Britain’s centre ground

by Nigel Scott and Jonathan Coulter

We are members of the British Liberal Democrat party, and are raising a topic that says much about the about the entire centre ground of British politics and may evoke parallels in other countries

The Lib Dem issue in brief

In handling subjects like ‘antisemitism’ and ‘trans’ rights, our party has succumbed to sophisticated and persistent lobbying from activists on one side of the debate. It has failed to engage with hard evidence, and stifled internal discussion. While the party has sometimes invoked disciplinary procedures against established members who have questioned the official line, it has allowed young activists and officials who support it (sometimes known as keyboard warriors) to engage in abusive behaviour with impunity.

This runs counter to the political philosophy of John Stewart Mill and Leonard Hobhouse in which our party is rooted, and which has freedom of speech and individual civil liberties at its core. Unfortunately, a culture of timidity has taken root in recent years, accompanied by an adherence to transient fashionable causes, without these being subjected to the degree of scrutiny required in a truly democratic institution. Open debate is actively smothered on certain subjects, and many opt for self-censorship.

A most alarming aspect of this is the implication for the party’s stance on matters of war and peace. In the first two decades of the 21st Century, Britain has engaged in wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Yemen, often with media support. There have been terrible consequences, notably the spread of arms and violence in the Middle East and Sub-Saharan Africa.

True, the Liberal Democrats opposed the invasion of Iraq. However, it is often forgotten that this was a last minute and close-run decision, accompanied by considerable hand-wringing from a timid party establishment, nervous about tabloid press disapproval and accusations of ‘unpatriotic behaviour’. Given this background, members must reassert themselves and not hand party functionaries the power to stifle legitimate debate.

We now provide further information on the two subjects mentioned.

Suppression of debate on ‘antisemitism’

The election of Jeremy Corbyn as Labour leader was followed by a media ‘tsunami’ conveying the impression that the Labour party was a hotbed of rampant antisemitism. Over a period of 45 months the Guardian published some 1,215 articles about the topic, and over a similar period eight titles collectively published 5,497 such articles. Broadcasters, and notably the BBC, were likewise involved. A wide range of statistical and other information challenged the veracity of this narrative (see for example Coulter et al., Stern-Weiner and Maddison, Media Reform Coalition, Philo et al. and Pitt), but the mainstream media practically ignored it.

Some anti-Jewish prejudice exists in the Labour Party as elsewhere in British society, but there is no evidence of a rampant phenomenon, or a ‘cesspit’, as alleged by the Jewish Board of Deputies. Such persistent allegations can be described as a fake news campaign that diverted attention from Israel’s oppression of the Palestinians, and from Britain’s right-of-centre parties where there is more prejudice against all ethnic minorities, including Jews.

What really disturbed us was the stance of the LibDem leaders. The country had witnessed decades of abuse by media conglomerates, exemplified by the hacking scandal. The party was committed to curtail it through the full implementation of Justice Leveson’s proposals for regulation of the press. In practice however, Tim Farron, Vince Cable, Jo Swinson and others added their voice to the evidence-lite narrative about ‘antisemitism’ issuing from the self-same press.

In May 2019 twelve of us tried to engage the leaders in discussion of the evidence behind their assertions, but got no response. We then sought to open up debate on party discussion platforms or publications but encountered a wall of censorship. On one Facebook page a group of the above-mentioned keyboard warriors hurled four-letter and other abuse at us, simply because we had posted evidence they did not wish to see.

The party establishment’s standard defence was that these platforms and publications were autonomous and not acting at the behest of the leadership, but this wore thin as the same pattern repeated itself with eight different Lib Dem entities. It became totally untenable when a party official took down a post on the new ‘Policy Lab’ that the party leadership had explicitly set up to elicit members’ ideas, and just as the post was gathering the support of other members.

The case of ‘trans’ rights

For several years, the issues surrounding trans and women’s rights have been a matter of heated argument. Organisations like Stonewall and Mermaids campaign relentlessly for greater acceptance of transmen and transwomen and for them to gain the legal right to self-declare their status without third party intervention. They have briefed and successfully lobbied for many organisations to implement trans positive policies and practices, including the police, the Girl Guides, numerous local authorities and charities such as Action Aid.

On the other hand, there has been pushback from defenders of women’s rights like LGB Alliance, Transgender Trend, Woman’s Place UK and individuals like J K Rowling, Piers Morgan and Baroness Nicholson, who feel that women’s concerns for their safety and identity are being ignored. Pro-trans lobby groups have labelled these latter groups Terfs and transphobes, and have made vigorous attempts to prevent them from speaking and articulating their concerns, and caused some women to fear for their safety.

As with the antisemitism issue, it is the behaviour of our party that most concerns us. The Liberal Democrats should be open to debate about trans and women’s rights, looking at the subject in detail and attempting to bring people together to find solutions that can secure widespread support. Regrettably, many trans campaigners have sought, with some success, to shut down debate. Party members who attempt to raise the issue in forums or exchanges with other members are having posts removed and are being subjected to party disciplinary proceedings. Others are afraid to speak out or are leaving the party altogether. This is not acceptable in a democratic political party in 2020 UK.

A broader challenge to Britain’s centre ground

The behaviour of the Lib Dems mirrors the way centrist elements in other political parties are putting near-term political advantage over broader national concerns. Many Conservative MPs have prioritised their political careers over their opposition to Brexit, while many rightward-leaning Labour MPs, not least the current leader Keir Starmer, have used the media-driven ‘antisemitism row’ as a stick with which to batter left-wing rivals and members, including many Jewish people who are critical of Israel.

Starmer has leveraged a report of the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) that was flawed in terms of conception, evidence and reasoning. It was conceptually flawed because it required the authors to determine whether the Labour party had acted to address an ‘antisemitism crisis’ that existed at the level of media discourse rather than solid evidence. They drew heavily upon a highly questionable dossier from the Jewish Labour Movement, while practically ignoring other crucial sources. As regards reasoning, they illogically held the party leadership (i.e. Corbyn) responsible for the inaction of his political opponents and accusers, and repeatedly presented the ‘Jewish Community’ as the victim, while their own data indicated that those most unfairly treated were the respondents, i.e. those answering accusations of antisemitic behaviour. The EHRC report was, in short, an appallingly unprofessional piece of work.

Members of the Conservative Middle East Council (CMEC) are fully aware of the way lobbyists weaponise antisemitism to attack those who criticise Israel. Sir Alan Duncan drew attention to this in his RUSI speech of 2014, said that “for far too long, those who have made a moral stand against Israeli misconduct and in favour of justice for Palestinians have been trashed, traduced and bullied”. Various Conservatives spoke up vigorously after Israeli Government operative Shai Masot sought to cripple the career of the self-same Duncan, but none have cared to call out the more recent skulduggery against their political rivals in the Labour Party.

The centre ground desperately needs fresh and courageous political leadership prepared to prioritise the national interest and evidence-based debate over narrow political advantage. The Liberal Democrats are well positioned to provide this, but the party’s cowardice, resulting from fear of criticism by lobby groups and/or in the media, threatens the abandonment of liberal principles dating back to Mill and Hobhouse.