John McDonnell

The sanction was an internal disciplinary measure linked to a vote of conscience on child poverty. McDonnell continued to defend his opposition to the cap. The final outcome — readmission to the parliamentary group — is preserved.

State of the evidence

Documented

Attribution

Directly implicated

McDonnell and Jeremy Corbyn maintained that police officers had authorised them to cross the line to lay flowers. The case was referred to the CPS for two of those questioned; the Metropolitan Police subsequently confirmed that no prosecutions would follow against nine people, without identifying them individually. McDonnell stated in Hansard that both his case and Corbyn's had been dropped.

Attribution

Directly implicated

The event is retained because of his responsibility as a party leader and his own public response, not as an attribution to McDonnell of antisemitic remarks made by third parties. He maintained that Labour had to continue learning and become an example of anti-racism.

State of the evidence

Documented

Attribution

Direct responsibility

It is important not to attribute the call for lynching to him as a personal quotation: he was reporting a constituent's words. The controversy concerns his decision to repeat the term and his own political insults directed at McVey in the context of welfare reforms.

State of the evidence

Documented

Attribution

Directly implicated

McDonnell explained that his original intention had been to help keep the republican movement within the peace process, not to celebrate victims of violence. In 2015, he acknowledged that the wording had clearly caused offence and apologised unreservedly for that offence.

State of the evidence

Documented

Attribution

Directly implicated

McDonnell maintained that it was a joke understood as such by the audience, while acknowledging that it could have caused offence. No operational call for violence or criminal proceedings were identified.

State of the evidence

Documented

Attribution

Directly implicated

McDonnell explained that it was a self-deprecating joke intended to draw attention to sales of British assets to Chinese interests. He said he was not a supporter of Mao and was prepared to apologise to victims offended by the gesture.

State of the evidence

Documented

Attribution

Directly implicated

Livingstone ultimately chose to set a budget and stated that he no longer trusted McDonnell. Contemporary parliamentary documents also reproduce a letter from McDonnell discussing the idea of increasing spending to raise the stakes of the confrontation with the government. The episode is a historical controversy over budget strategy and local governance.

State of the evidence

Documented

Attribution

Direct responsibility