³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

Accusations that anti-Semitism wasn't being taken seriously enough by Labour are proving politically toxic in two ways.

First, they undermine Labour's "brand" - a party that stands for equal rights and anti-racism.

And secondly, the effort to detoxify the issue has arguably diverted the party's leadership from the forthcoming local election contests.

So it would have been helpful if the Jewish groups had suggested that progress had been made since their demonstration in Parliament Square, which some of Jeremy Corbyn's own MPs joined a month ago.

While they did welcome Mr Corbyn's words on anti-Semitism - and his denunciation of those who said the problem had been invented or exaggerated - their verdict on action, or lack of it, means that the issue remains a potent force in the hands of the Labour leader's internal and external opponents.

Perhaps the most positive interpretation is that there was a disagreement over detail and not a fundamental division in outlook.

That's certainly how sources close to the Labour leadership would like it to be seen.

They say Mr Corbyn agreed in principle to most of what he was being asked to do - but that there were some practical difficulties.

So he said yes to speeding up disciplinary procedures, but no to setting fixed timescales which lawyers might interpret as arbitrary.

He agreed that the long-standing and high profile case of Ken Livingstone (who had suggested Hitler supported Zionism before he went mad) would be "expedited".

But that means being heard by the party's disciplinary body, the National Constitutional Committee, in July. Mr Corbyn, I understand, made clear he had no power to expel him.

So the Jewish groups accused the Labour leadership of hiding behind process.

They'll meet again in July.

But the differing interpretations of the same meeting - Jeremy Corbyn called it "constructive", the Jewish groups "a missed opportunity" - suggest that the rebuilding of trust might be a longer term construction project.