Mark Perryman questions whether  a Tyneside Mayor should have a conversation with Ken Loach who has made a trilogy of films set in the region 

The work of Labour’s Jamie Driscoll, North of Tyne Mayor, has been widely praised across the political spectrum. Like Matthew Brown, leader of Preston City Council pioneer of community wealth-building, and Manchester Mayor and champion of publicly owned buses Andy Burnham, Jamie has been helping to create a new wave of municipal socialism true to Labour’s broad traditions.

Yet he has been banned from the Labour shortlist of candidates by Party officials for the newly created post of ‘North East Mayor’, a post that effectively replaces his current post.

The reason given for this is he took part in an event with Ken Loach and as such is in conflict with Labour’s opposition to antisemitism. The misreporting of both the event and the reasoning is off the scale and deserves to be deconstructed to expose the dangerous illogicality of it all. Here goes…

First, Jamie didn’t organise the event, He was invited to take part by a highly regarded arts venue in Newcastle, The Live Theatre. It’s not often politicians get an invite of this sort: should he have turned it down?

Second, the reason for the event was Ken Loach’s new film The Old Oak, the third in a trilogy following Sorry We We Missed You and I Daniel Blake, both set in the North East. Each has been widely acclaimed for their portrayal, of casualisation, food poverty, and racism. This was no political rally in support of Ken Loach’s views on Israel, it was an arts centre event combining one of the North East’s most prominent elected politicians with a world famous film-maker who makes films about the area the politician represents.

Third, I have searched but cannot find any footage of the event. The venue may well have some: if they do it needs to be dug out and shared. However, not one report denouncing Jamie’s participation provides any evidence of what he said; the reason for the event isn’t given either – purely hearsay, it is enough he was there.

Fourth, it is perfectly possible to disagree with Ken Loach’s views. I am not nor ever have been a Trotskyist; he has. He uses the terminology ‘weaponisation;’ of antisemitism: I never have or will. He believes the problem of antisemitism in Labour is exaggerated: I find such a numbers game offensive.  His direction of the 1987 play Perdition I’d suggest is a stain on his career. And yet, like many cinemagoers, I find his films on the whole hugely important and spellbindingly effective in their portrayal of working-class life. It’s a view borne out by the numerous awards Ken Loach has received, the glowing reviews.

The Labour Party bureaucracy view sems to be that it is impossible to hold two views at the same time, critique and appreciation. According to this logic, the Cannes jury, BAFTA, film reviewers , cinema-goers who regard Ken Loach as Britain’s greatest living film maker are all colluding with antisemitism?

Fifth, the only conclusion from Labour’s reasoning is that all Labour members should be instructed not to go and see The Old Oak on its release; it should be boycotted as the product of Ken Loach’s antisemitism. Will the Party be issuing such advice and sanctioning any elected Labour politician who ignores this, watches the film and admits to liking it?

Sixth, Jamie has been excluded from the shortlist for supposedly colluding with antisemitism yet remains a Labour Mayor. Almost all those similarly excluded from shortlists for a variety of reasons have been allowed to not only retain their Labour membership but their elected position held in the Party’s name. Why, if the party really believes they are collaborators with antisemitism or guilty of some such other charge? Or is this simply a device to fix a selection, and never mind all that?

Seventh, Labour claims to have turned the corner on antisemitism. This claim is entirely performative – a mix of expulsions (see point eight) and a much trumpeted education programme, which I participated in. The only figure provided for the programme is  that 5,000 members have taken part. Impressive? When this figure was given it amounted to 1% of the membership.

The idea Labour’s organisational culture provides the space for developing an understanding of antisemitism, or any other version of discrimination is absolutely laughable. The antisemitism education programme was amateurish, the participation level miniscule.

Eighth, the Labour Party has expelled an unprecedented number of Jewish members for… antisemitism. Let’s consider this for a moment:

What if the Labour Party had expelled

– An unprecedented number of women members for misogyny

– A unprecedented number of black and ethnic minority members for racism

– An unprecedented number of LGBT members for homophobia

– An unprecedented number of transgender members for transphobia

You get my point? Labour has a communitarian, a deeply reactionary, view of Jewish Identity. This is based on the entirely fallacious idea that there is one single Jewish identity, whereas it is multi-faced. Yes, Zionism as an ideology and a close identification  with Israel are the majority view, but these too are multi-faceted.

The Labour Party is incapable of recognising the plurality of Jewish identity. The clue perhaps is in the title of two Jewish Labour organisations, the Jewish Labour Movement and Jewish Voice for Labour, diametrically opposed on almost everything apart from the identity they each share.

Ninth, while Jamie is excluded from the shortlist, Steve Reed who used an antisemitic epithet is a Shadow Cabinet Member. Neil Coyle who used a racist epithet alongside drunken and violent behaviour has had the Labour Whip restored. And if reports are to be believed, the Parliamentary Labour Party is rife with sexual harassment and worse, But never mind all that, Jamie Driscoll has revealed a liking and respect for Ken Loach’s films about the North East and needs to be dealt with.

Tenth, the Labour left – Jamie Driscoll is unashamedly on the left of this so-called broad church Party – is up in arms about how Jamie has been treated. But much more significantly, a long-term supporter of Keir Starmer, Paul Mason has also spoken out. But this descent into infamy won’t stop until others join Paul, until the centre shifts.

Andy Burnham, who most would place on the centre left has spoken out too. What about Jamie’s other fellow Labour Mayors including Sadiq Khan and Tracy Brabin? What about centre-left MPs, such as Rosena Allin-Khan, and Alex Sobel? And, of course, Angela Rayner? None serial rebels, all broadly supportive of Keir, yet capable of spotting when a wrong decision has been made and a dignified retreat is required. 

And if not? At some point in 2024 the Tories are likely to lose a General Election. Good. And as a consequence of that defeat, Keir Starmer will become Prime Minister. But if this is the top-down, authoritarian way he manages his own Party, the question we need to ask is: how will Keir govern the country?

Mark Perryman is a member of, and events organiser for, Lewes CLP. He writes in a personal capacity.