Resolve disciplinary cases within four months, Board tells next Labour leader

The Board of Deputies president Marie van der Zyl made the demand just days before the party is expected to announce the result of its leadership contest

ITV political editor Robert Peston with Rebecca Long Bailey, Emily Thornberry, (who has since pulled out of the contest), Keir Starmer and Lisa Nandy during the community's Labour leadership hustings in February (Marc Morris)

The next Labour leader should resolve all outstanding disciplinary cases within four months of taking office, the Board of Deputies’ president Marie van der Zyl said on Tuesday.

The senior community leader made the demand in an article published in The Times today – just days before the party is expected to announce the result of its leadership contest on 4 April.

In her op-ed, Van der Zyl said that areas “to be looked at closely” should include the leader’s office, Parliamentary Labour Party, shadow cabinet, party headquarters and ruling body and “arguably the network of outriders including sympathetic commentators, trade union leaders and various quasi-media outlets.”

“We will be urging the new leader to take determined and swift action not just against people who have committed such offences, but disciplinary measures against whole branches or CLPs when necessary,” she added.

In January, the Board of Deputies called on Labour leadership and leader candidates to adopt its 10 pledges – which included the resolution of future and outstanding cases “under a fixed timescale”.

Labour MPs Rebecca Long-Bailey, Lisa Nandy and Keir Starmer are vying to succeed Jeremy Corbyn as leader.

All three leadership rivals, who backed the 10 pledges, vowed to mend relations with the community last month at Jewish Labour Movement hustings backed by the Jewish News and Labour Friends of Israel.

The 90-minute hustings saw all candidates vow to implement recommendations made by the Equalities and Human Rights Commission following their investigation into allegations of antisemitism in the party.

 

read more:
comments