AS A socialist and a writer, sometimes I hope I am wrong about the future of British politics — in particular, the direction the Labour Party is heading. In January 2020, I wrote in the Morning Star that Keir Starmer’s decision to commit the Labour Party to abide by the 10 pledges of the Board of Deputies (BoD) was a dangerous move for the left.

Not only would it be used to silence criticism of the actions by Israel and curtail free speech, but wherever possible it would be used to suspend Labour members on the left with a view to expelling them — thereby bit by bit filling the party with members that are centre-right while silencing criticism about the treatment of Palestinians by those on the left that have remained in Labour.

My prediction by some in Labour was seen as a little far-fetched. No, I was told, socialists would not let that happen. Socialists should remain in Labour — “stay and fight” against Starmer’s plan to silence members and move the party back to the left. After three years we all know how well that is going, don’t we?

In the main, I suspect this refusal to see what could happen was due to many not fully understanding exactly what Starmer had signed up to, and the implications of falling foul of these rules together with the impact it would have on Labour members voicing their opinion.

However, it is worth pointing out that when it comes to discussing the 10 pledges, it would not have made any difference if Rebecca Long-Bailey had won the leadership contest, as she too had agreed to accept them.

Of all the pledges, the problem I am referring to in this case is outlined in pledge five under the heading Provide No Platform for Bigotry, which reads: “Any MPs, peers, councillors, members or CLP who support, campaign or provide a platform for those that have been suspended or expelled in the wake of an anti-semitic incidents, should themselves be suspended from membership.”

Firstly, let me be clear: condemning Israel for any unjustified violence dished out to Palestinians in the same way we would condemn state forces of any other countries for their actions against unarmed civilians, is not anti-semitic in any way.

That said, that does not mean that a Labour member will not perceive it as such and lodge a complaint, as is their right — and there lies the problem.

But it is not just the removal of members’ right to speak out against all injustice that will land them with at best a suspension and at worse an expulsion that is the problem.

They cannot voice their opinion for a comrade who has been, in their view, unjustly suspended for an alleged anti-semitic comment. If they do, they too will be facing the same fate. However, by contrast, the “accused member” is fair game to all and sundry.

Under Starmer’s watch, Labour members are free to voice their opinion on how awful the accused person is, and that there is no place for people like them in the Labour Party — and that is prior to the person who has been suspended being formally investigated and having an opportunity to state their case.

For anyone in any doubt, look at the attacks meted out to Diane Abbott following her recent suspension, both on social media and in the press.

On Monday April 24 the Express newspaper even ran an online opinion poll asking “Should Diane Abbott be expelled?” I must have missed their poll asking if a man who made a comment about “watermelon smiles” was fit to be prime minister.

Naturally, as Labour leader Starmer has been asked to comment many times on the allegations made against Abbott, and obviously as a former director of public prosecution, who claims he values (checks notes) “fairness and justice,” he has remained silent on his views pending the investigation — right?

Well, no. Starmer, talking at an unrelated event told reporters on April 27: “In my view, what [Abbott] said was to be condemned. It was anti-semitic.”

However, while appearing on ITV’s GMB morning programme, Starmer, not for the first time flip-flopping on what he believes, said: “There’s an investigation going on now. We need to look at what she said and come to a decision.”

He went on to add, “My gut feeling is that it’s shocking, my gut feeling is that it’s anti-semitic and that I’m determined to change the Labour Party so the Labour Party and anti-semitism are not mentioned in the same sentence.”

I would suggest that going by what Starmer said, regardless of the impending investigation, the fate of Abbott is already sealed.

What of Abbott’s socialist comrades? Have they openly demonstrated their support or solidarity?

None that I could find, for if they did, they too would be joining others such as Chris Williamson, Jackie Walker and many others who have been shown the door for refusing to silence their voices on the demand of those that pull the strings of the Labour Party leader.

This trend of trying to ban Labour members from saying anything that could be seen as negative related to Israel and dressing it up as anti-semitic is worrying enough, but what is more concerning is what Starmer could do if given the power as prime minister with an overall majority.

For instance, what would prevent a Starmer-led Labour government from introducing a law, under the heading of “hate crime,” that covers, albeit in an ambiguous way, everything that the Labour Party now classify as their interpretation of anti-semitism?

And now I suppose I am going to be told by those that were proved incorrect by my predictions on Starmer’s connection with the BoD, that I am wrong again — aren’t I?