This whole exchange with Owen Jones really is very poor considering that this is the Chief Political commentator in the FT. Its particularly insulting if you know the context of how the phrase "hierarchy of racism" gained currency on the broader Labour-ish left in the UK. I think it betrays a real ignorance of a long and storied topic. So some history... The term "hierarchy of racism" was most prominently included in the Forde Report. The Report was the result of an investigation headed by Martin Forde KC, a well-respected black barrister with a long history in tackling issues like the Windrush scandal. Forde'sc investigation was supported by a panel of grandee appointed by the Labour Party NEC - the likes of Baroness Ruth Lister, so hardly a bevy of radicals. Forde was tasked with investigating a series of issues filtering the released of the "Leaked Report." Very very very long story short, Forde was asked to investigate how issues of racism, antisemitism, hyper-factionalism and misconduct intertwined in the vicious battle for the Labour Party in the Corbyn years. Forde ended his report (endorsed by all the other members of the Forde Committee) by noting that some staff believed that there was a "perception" of a "hierarchy of racism" in the Labour Party, with antisemitism treated more seriously and given more time than other forms of discrimination. The Party's own response to Forde confirmed, over and over, that Forde was right. Indeed, the Party treated Forde disgracefully. He was briefed against in the media. He was blocked from speaking to the Committee convened to consider the report and its recommendations. When he became concerned his report was not being taken seriously, he gave an interview to the media - and the Party, outrageously, tried to gag him with legal threats. There are many ugly stories in The Fraud, but it still fills me with fury to think about how atrociously the Starmer and the McSweeney project treated Forde. Most people think Forde was thrown under the bus because he called out right-wing factionalism. But the real "sin" of the Forde Report was that it criticised the Party's antisemitism training delivered by the (pro-Israel) Jewish Labour Movement for being top-down, didactic and limited (a comment made by another member of his committee who insisted it be included - not Forde himself, although most people don't know that). The Report suggested that an anti-Zionist group, JVL, be allowed to deliver training to complement the JLM training. And for this Forde was ridiculed. Numerous commentators, including one from JLM, wrote articles attacking the Forde Report, accusing Forde straying into places he was not supposed to go. By 2025, Forde had changed his tune. He said the there wasn't a "perception" of a hierarchy of racism in Labour - it simply just did operate a hierarchy of racism in how seriously it treated different types of discrimination, and had disgraced itself by how often it had mistreated prominent black and brown politicians like Diane Abbott and Apsama Begum. Really, the examples of the hierarchy are overwhelming. I write in the Fraud of how Starmer's team directly intervened in antisemitism complaints handling to kick out members accused - often wrongly - of antisemitism. It brought in new, deeply unfair rules like retrospective proscription as a mechanism to expel individuals like Ken Loach who could never be found guilty of antisemitism but were still unpalatable to Jewish communal organisations. It was through this mechanism that huge numbers of Jewish members were eventually expelled. Compare that to when the conflict in Gaza begins. Dozens of Muslim councillors resign in fury. An unnamed senior source says Labour is "shaking off the fleas." The Labour Muslim Network (LMN) writes to the leadership asking for a meeting and a way forward to address wide-spread anger. The response? Morgan McSweeney texts a WhatsApp group that LMN are not good faith actors. /1

The new 'independent' review into antisemitism in schools really is such a Labour Together joint. Most obviously, it was commissioned, and is now being received (and approved), by two of the 'brave eight' MPs who were part of the Labour Together's projects campaign to capture the Labour Party: Bridget Philipson and Lucy Powell. But my favourite nugget is that the review cites the Center for Countering Digital Hate! Incredibly, the review misspells its name ("Centre"), because it really is shoddy in every possible way. CCDH, as I've written about endlessly, was created by Morgan McSweeney and his buddy Imran Ahmed in 2019, and emerged from their insane astroturf campaign to destroy British media outlets that posed an obstacle to their political ambitions. CCDH was initially resourced by Labour Together, while Labour Together was being funded with illegally undeclared donations from millionaire and pro-Israel donors. McSweeney was a director until he became Starmer's Chief of Staff in the Labour Party. Later the board of CCDH welcomed Mr. Dave Rich, Policy Director at CST, who is now getting angry at left-wing people who are pointing out the obvious flaws in this slapdash, disgraceful report. In 2024 it was revealed the CCDH planned to 'kill Elon Musk's Twitter', according to its internal documents. In 2025, it was revealed that Ahmed, as CEO of CCDH, had received the help of top officials at the Israeli embassy in the US, who offered to introduce Ahmed to 'philanthropists' who could support his work. Definitely seems like the sort of organisation a credible, meaningful review guiding government policy should be citing... right?