Conservatives back MP's stance against Labour Party anti-Semitism

The Conservative group tonight presented a motion to Council concerning anti-Semitism in politics, and the failure of the Labour leader to act against anti-Semitism within the Labour Party.

The motion read as follows:

“Given the recent reports of anti-Semitism within the Labour Party, this Council supports MPs of all parties in their public condemnation of anti-Semitism in any form.”

However, the Lord Mayor judged the motion to be beyond the scope of the Council’s constitution. While we are disappointed there wasn’t a debate, we respect the Lord Mayor’s decision, and the reasons for it.

But while the motion was not debated, we hold firm to the principles behind it.

The reasons for that were simple.

A month ago Rosie Duffield MP attended a protest in Parliament Square. She and a small number of Labour MPs joined thousands saying enough is enough, and insisting the Labour leader act over increasing anti-Semitism within their own party.

In the time since, the Labour leader has done practically nothing.

Meanwhile, Members of Parliament who attended that rally, including Ms Duffield, have faced abuse and threats, all from within their own party.

Instead of supporting these MPs, some members of the hard left group Momentum called for their de-selection -- backed by film director Ken Loach, who accused Ms Duffield of “disloyalty” to Jeremy Corbyn.

The motion proposed to support local MPs of any political colours who stand up to anti-Semitism.

Especially when pressured by groups such as Momentum to adopt views contrary to their own.

Doing so would strip MPs of their conscience.

It would mean MPs abandoning their duty to constituents in favour of loyalty to unelected groups.

On this crucial matter of anti-Semitism Rosie Duffield acted on her conscience, not instruction.

The motion was intended to praise MP of any party for their stance against anti-Semitism. More so in the case of our local MP, who defied her own leadership to do so.

We regret that it wasn’t possible to debate the motion in the council chamber. But we stand by those principles, and those who would act upon them.