UK extremism: 'We need more than a definition, we need an action plan' - Labour

Right back to our top story now and the government is redefining extremism today Well earlier in the program the community secretary Michael Gove told us that the new definition is not intended to stop people Demonstrating and that judgments about whether a group is extremist won't be taken lightly I'm joined now as you can see by the shadow chief secretary to the Treasury Darren Jones. Very good morning to you Thanks for thanks for joining us. So let's start on this new definition of extremism. What do you make of the updated definition? Well, the first thing to say is that of course it's a cross-party agreement that hateful extremism should not be tolerated so that's good The definition though really doesn't go far enough because as you've talked about already this morning, what is this actually about? It's about stopping the government Financing individuals or organizations, but it considers to be hateful extremist Well that rather implies they're doing it at the moment And that's why Michael Gove should answer which organizations he is concerned about But if you really want to take action against hateful extremism, you need more than a definition for government administration You need an action plan You need a strategy and the countering hateful extremism strategy is now nine years after date and we think that should be updated as well It's interesting you say he should outline the names of the organizations He's concerned about because we were pressing him this morning about whether those people get a fair Assessment and hearing under the new definition, which is of course just just done internally within government So you think name and shame immediately? Well, I think the process needs to be clarified It's very unusual for officials and ministers to be able to make unilateral decisions like this without any Right to appeal or checks and balances in Parliament all that we have here is a judicial review option to the high court Which is available against any government decision But as we know that's a very costly process that many people can't afford to take so it does seem ahead Kind of design and the process and the accountability isn't quite right. So should he name and shame today or not? I don't think he should unless he either has one has concerns that the government is financing extremist organizations and then that begs the question well Why are they doing that in the first place? Or two whether he's able to follow a proper process with due diligence and checks and balances and just to clarify from your earlier Answer would labor Legislates to update the definition of extremism to give more powers for example to the police Well, there are a number of different different things what we what we've called for today is that the countering hateful extremism Strategy needs to be updated. That's how police and other agencies operate to tackle this issue That hasn't been updated for nine years It needs to be reviewed and there needs to be an action plan with some support about how that's put into put into place if you need primary legislation will Of course consider that at the right time I wanted to talk on move on to the debate around Frank Hester the Tory donors comments and in particular What Diane Abbott the subject of those comments, of course has said not just in general but about labor She wrote an op-ed today and said as it relates to the Frank Hester comments The position of the Labour Party is disappointing It seemed equally reluctant at the outset to call out either racism or sexism. Is that fair from Diana? I don't think so. I'm very conscious that this is a very Sensitive and difficult issue for Diane so I don't want it to become a kind of internal party Argument, but under Keir's leadership. It's been very very clear. I think based on the evidence that any Behavior that is not tolerated for example on racism or any other things is dealt with very very quickly that's why we have the independent complaints process and that's why as we've seen in recent months candidates will be Taken off the ballot for labor if they're not meeting the standards that we expect I mean, it's interesting because it seems like she does want to make it an internal Labour Party issue She said the Ford report in this op-ed today. She said the Ford report Revealed quote shocking levels of racism and sexism from within the Labour Party again much of it directed Against me end quote and she ends the the op-ed by saying if leading politicians genuinely want to address issues Address threats of extremism. They should look closer to home. So Do you think it's fair for her to be focusing the reaction to these comments almost equally towards the Labour Party as to the Diane the Ford report that she mentioned was commissioned by Keir Starmer its conclusions led to the actions that he's taken to change the Labour Party around the independent complaints processes and the standards I've already Mentioned and I certainly wouldn't come to a conclusion that the Labour Party is guilty of any form of extremism On the on the flip side does Diane Abbott deserve support this week Any week when she faces levels of extremism or racism, even though she's had the whip removed Is she getting that support this week? Absolutely. She deserves that support and I think that was evidence yesterday when Keir not only Advocated for her in Prime Minister's questions But as you probably saw on the television went to offer any additional support that she might need from us It's right that Diane and other members of Parliament irrespective of political party Facing these types of horrid claims are supported and that we all push back and say that that's unacceptable And it's funny you said just a moment ago that there's no evidence that the Labour Party is Extreme or extremist in any way. It's interesting that we talk about this on a day where that definition is being reviewed It's fair for us to assess in the same way that's been done with the Conservative part of this week comments by donors to the Labour Party On 9th of October Dale Vince on Times Radio Said that nobody ever talks about Palestine's right to defend itself. Just Israel's and he was asked What off the back of that whether the terrorist attack from Hamas was Palestine defending itself and he said quote I think one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist. That's how it works He was pressed on the fact that this view was different From the view of Labour Party the parties donated to and he said quote. This is my view. That's that's how I feel How wrong was that that statement in your eyes? Is it wrong enough for you to have to return funds? He's donated in the same way that you're calling about Frank Hester and conservatives short the bit you didn't quite quote From that was when he said that he clearly did not support the terrorist actions of Hamas and it what happened on October the 7th In in Israel So I think what he was making a point about and it's clearly for Dale to speak to his own words But my understanding of it is that in all of these circumstances whether it's Israel Gaza or another conflicts around the world You know There are people on either side of war who end up with that type of narrative or assumption about their activities What he wasn't doing then was supporting Hamas or the terrorist attack. He was very clear in that interview that he wasn't supporting that It's interesting that we come to this point and Lord man Just just moments before made a very clear and impassioned call That everything has become far too politicized and both sides need to work together and of course today we are in Parliament going to be hearing about a new definition of extremism when we step back from it all whether it's Labour's response to Frank Hester comments whether it's conservatives response to as our Ali's comments a few weeks ago Has this all become too politicized are both parties and all? Parliamentarians throwing mud too much rather than focusing on an issue that surely Surely there is common ground and agreement on so I agree with John that you have to get the balance, right? There shouldn't be party political mud throwing in relation to this issue As I said at the very start of this interview, it should not be a party political issue It is not a part of this issue that you want to eradicate hateful extremism in our country It shouldn't be tolerated in any aspects of life whether that's in politics or elsewhere And so you really there should be cross party collaboration and working on a cross party basis to make sure that these definitions the strategies I've talked about the way in which Officials engage in communities across the country is handled because you do need political buy-in to this process as well as community buy-in So I would agree with John man that that should be done in that way And if there's any suggestion that there is party politics playing a role in here, I think colleagues should think about their behavior Darren Jones, thanks for joining us. We appreciate it as always