Starmer had £50K from pro-Israel lobbyist. Time for a ‘no confidence’ vote? [POLL]
Keir Starmer: he’s pictured practising the hallmark of his Labour leadership so far – inactivity.
Now we see why Keir Starmer was so cagey about donations to his Labour leadership campaign.
He has been taking cash from lobbyists dedicated to pushing the interests of the Israeli government, from opponents of Jeremy Corbyn and funders of the so-called Independent Group for Change (or whatever they ended up calling themselves) – the Labour splitters who were annihilated in the last general election.
In other words, it seems his funders are opponents of socialist, pro-Middle East peace Labour.
This casts a shadow over his handling of the leaked Labour document on factional interference in the party’s handling of anti-Semitism complaints.
With so many anti-Corbyn funders, and the report showing how anti-Corbyn sentiment informed the lack of exertion on anti-Semitism by the party’s Governance and Legal Unit, it is easy to reach an obvious conclusion about Starmer’s priorities.
This would be hasty. But it certainly seems clear that Starmer’s ainnocence needs to be established before he can continue as leader.
A responsible man would step back, (I think the word is) recuse himself and allow an independent investigation into the report and his donations, returning to office only if he is found innocent of any wrongdoing or corruption.
Trouble is, he hasn’t done that.
So my question is: is it too early for a vote of ‘no confidence’ in this non-leader’s leadership?
[polldaddy poll=10539043]Source: Keir Starmer received £50,000 donation from pro-Israel lobbyist in leadership bid | The Canary
Have YOU donated to my crowdfunding appeal, raising funds to fight false libel claims by TV celebrities who should know better? These court cases cost a lot of money so every penny will help ensure that wealth doesn’t beat justice.
Vox Political needs your help!
If you want to support this site
(but don’t want to give your money to advertisers)
you can make a one-off donation here:
Here are four ways to be sure you’re among the first to know what’s going on.
1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (in the left margin). You can then receive notifications of every new article that is posted here.
2) Follow VP on Twitter @VoxPolitical
3) Like the Facebook page at https://www.facebook.com/VoxPolitical/
Join the Vox Political Facebook page.
4) You could even make Vox Political your homepage at http://voxpoliticalonline.com
And do share with your family and friends – so they don’t miss out!
If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!
Buy Vox Political books so we can continue
fighting for the facts.
The Livingstone Presumption is now available
in either print or eBook format here:
Health Warning: Government! is now available
in either print or eBook format here:
The first collection, Strong Words and Hard Times,
is still available in either print or eBook format here:
I thought you were against bullying the democratically elected leadership out of office by unconstitutional means.
A ‘confidence’ vote is a constitutional means.
I agreed with the viewpoint you expressed way back in July 2016.
Trouble is stammer the spammer is in now the blairites once more take control stopping any enquiries into their handling deviously the party their way .
Are you made!!!! We finally have a chance of getting a Labour govt. Remember, remember, remember 4 elections for 4 Corbyn failures. The sooner you far left socialists accept there is Never Never Never going to be a far left socialist govt the better. What is Corbyn’s greatest achievement? Landing the country with a far right, Nazi style govt, led by an after dinner, philandering old Etonian. Concentrate on getting rid of them rather than crying into your milk.
I come from a Labour voting family but I deserted the party under Corbyn, now I WILL COME back!!!!
I like your journalism now is the time to campaign for a Labour govt and to campaign hard.
I’m not made, or even mad.
Perhaps you haven’t noticed but the reason Corbyn lost in 2017 is members of his own party were conspiring to prevent him from winning. Right-wing infiltrators were working to ensure that the Tories stayed in power. Why aren’t you complaining about this treachery? THEY landed you with the far-right, Nazi-style government you mention. THEY wanted it. But you don’t want to get rid of them. Why not?
We do NOT have a chance of a Labour government because Labour is now a synonym for corruption.
“4 elections for 4 Corbyn failures”? Which alternative reality do you live in? Besides which, Corbyn’s political stance is pretty much comparable with democratic Socialist parties throughout Europe. Where the hell do you get ‘far left’ from? Have you been so thoroughly brainwashed by the universally right-wing UK mainstream media?
Starmer isn’t a Bairite that is just daft. Corbyn could have dealt with things that were a problem in the party – he was the leader after all he was responsible for party conduct /discipline but preferred to hide on his allotment. I voted for him and gave it a spin, at the time the other candidates were dire – he was a great activist and backbencher – put the socialist agenda back in the mainstream that was good but not really up to the job of leader. Great for building the membership but didn’t engage with the wider electorate or the media which was a big mistake – that is why he was defeated more than any internal squabbling. Many times I heard of things that May or Johnnson said/did and Corbyn remained silent which was not what he was elected to do. He did not oppose, the Tories more or less got a free pass for the last few years. I think Starmer will be a good and fair leader and is much better equipped for the job. So, unless you want a Tory government forever I suggest you stop your efforts to undermine him. 56% of the membership vote speaks for itself so deal with it. There are other parties to join if you aren’t happy with that and don’t want to respect the mandate.
How many of the points you make against Corbyn were not his fault but that of the party officers undermining him? We know they withheld information from him that he needed, when he was on the campaign trail, for example.
It’s all very well to come out with a lot of unsubstantiated claims about him but I don’t see any evidence to support what you’re saying.
Starmer is as I have described him. Your choice is now between Blue Tories and Red Tories and we will not have a Labour government, let alone a socialist one, while he is in charge. Grow up and understand that.
This is completely ludicrous. Starmer has said that he wants an investigation into the contents of the report, he is covering up nothing. At the same time of course he has to find out how it came to be written and in particular who leaked it, because it was leaked unredacted and has breached the confidence of party staff, complainants and the people subject to complaints.
For you to suggest that because one or some of Starmer’s donations came from British Jews who also (like the majority of British Jews) are Zionists, this has any impact whatsoever on his judgement about the leaked report, more than verges on antisemitism.
For you to undermine a newly elected leader of the Labour party when he has scarcely taken up leadership shows exactly how much interest you have in disclosing the Tories.
The report, shockingly, exposed the machinations of those within the party opposed to Corbyn (although I am far from convinced that is the sole explanation for the party’s woeful foot-dragging in dealing with antisemitism). Your actions show that Labour is also being destroyed by factionalism from the left.
Some of us situated somewhere in the middle, and working hard for a Lanour government, are in despair.
It’s an official Labour Party report, commissioned by the general secretary to be part of the party’s submission to the EHRC investigation into anti-Semitism in the party. As a front-bencher, Starmer would have known all about its origins. As leader of the Labour Party, he received a copy within hours of being elected, and I hope you’re not suggesting that it didn’t come with a few explanatory notes.
Whoever leaked it is a whistleblower who has revealed what appears to be a conspiracy to commit a very serious crime – corruptly influencing the outcome of a general election. Therefore the Public Interest Disclosure Act applies and discussion of the document is permitted. That said, I would not discuss the comments about complainants – or defendants in fact (other than myself). As far as I’m concerned, only Labour staff are up for discussion.
You give yourself away by suggesting that I must be an anti-Semite simply for pointing out that Starmer received money from a person who is known to campaign in the interests of a foreign government. It is not anti-Semitic to make such a point. Please withdraw your claim or go away.
You also give yourself away by claiming that exposing the leader of the Labour Party has anything to do with my opinion of, or response to, the Conservatives. What a childish suggestion! Shame on you.
The report showed that Labour was being harmed by factionalism from the right. It is not an attempt to destroy the party with factionalism from the left to say that those responsible must be weeded out and expelled for their lifetimes, along with anyone – no matter where they stand in the party – who helped them or intentionally benefited from their misconduct.
I’ll be watching out for you in the future. Make sure you don’t make any more wild accusations of anti-Semitism.
Mike – There is to date no evidence that I have seen that Starmer had detailed prior knowledge of the contents of this report. Have you got any evidence to the contrary beyond your own suppositions?
Plus if what you intimate is true then surely the same level of knowledge would apply to all the shadow cabinet including Jeremy Corbyn which begs the question – WTF did any of them (incl JC) do in reaction to this report? Who was it that instructed the party’s lawyers to not submit it to the EHRC? Who made the decision to bury it?
As he was not handed the report until shortly after being announced as leader then it is very unlikely that he got around to even looking at it until the Tuesday at the earliest. Given its explosive contents it really isn’t unreasonable for Starmer to take a few days to consult with colleagues and others before taking any precipitative action.
Coincidentally JC was also criticised by the RW and the Tories on a number of occasions for refusing to make snap judgements before he had the full facts.
Given the contents of this report which in large part is about the undermining of Jeremy the (then) elected leader of our party it is more than a little perverse that instead of concentrating on ensuring that the scope and remit of Keir’s enquiry are sufficiently broad to ensure an outcome where justice can be seen to be done you choose to indulge in factionalism by attacking and undermining our newly elected leader who has only been in office for a few days. The very person who has had this pile of excrement dumped on his desk and is now responsible for investigating this leaked report about the undermining of JC our previous elected leader who has just resigned largely because he was undermined by rival factions within the party.
Whilst I can empathise with your hurt and anger at being thrown out of the party on trumped up charges at the behest of officials who appear to be corrupt I fail to see how your expulsion from the Labour Party has SFA to do with Starmer’s leadership.
Have a look at this video: https://www.facebook.com/standupforlabour/videos/574694963253081/ It shows John McDonnell explaining the circumstances in which the report was created. If he knew, Starmer knew (both in shadow cabinet at the time it was commissioned; Starmer now Labour leader; when he was handed the report, it is ridiculous to suggest that he would not have received information about it).
Steve, you attack my “suppositions” but then you go on to make suppositions of your own: “it is very unlikely that he got around to even looking at it until the Tuesday at the earliest. Given its explosive contents it really isn’t unreasonable for Starmer to take a few days to consult with colleagues and others before taking any precipitative action.” Where’s your factual basis for that? If you’re going to demand that standard from me, then it is perfectly reasonable for me to do the same.
You describe the report as a “pile of excrement”. Are you suggesting that the information it contains is false? On what basis would you make such a claim?
Your ad hominem attack on me is noted. Please never repeat such an attack against anybody on This Site again or you will be banned. Your last paragraph is particularly ill-judged.
Mike – Thanks for the link. Contrary to what you believe it appears to me that John’s opening statement endorses what I have said. My only caveat is that I’ve only had time to listen to his opening statement but I’ve no doubt that if he says anything different when he appears later on you will draw my attention to it
First of all as this video was obviously shot after the report was leaked I am having some difficulty in working out how this in any way supports what you say.
I agree with and wholeheartedly support everything that John McDonnell said in his opening statement. It is worth noting (all direct quotes) That JM commences his introduction with “the report as far as I am aware” this to me indicates that contrary to what you have said he had little, if any, prior knowledge of the detailed contents of this report.
He then goes on to say “Kier Starmer quite properly has done exactly as we asked of him, he’s setting up an investigation. He has my 100% support, he’s setting up the investigation. He says it will be independent and it will be speedy. Completely right, exactly right”. Again I am having some difficulty in working out how this in any way whatsoever supports what you are asserting.
You then go on to say “Steve, you attack my “suppositions” but then you go on to make suppositions of your own:”
On the contrary, unlike yourself who appears to be quite definitive when you quite clearly state “As a front-bencher, Starmer would have known all about its origins.” I have been quite clear that what I say is supposition rather than a fact. In evidence I quote myself “it is very unlikely that he got around to even looking at it until the Tuesday at the earliest”
You then go on to say “ Are you suggesting that the information it contains is false? On what basis would you make such a claim?”
I am 100% not casting any aspersions on the contents of this report. As the evidence speaks for itself it would be obviously be absolutely ridiculous for me (or anyone else for that matter) to do so. My apologies if you misinterpreted what I wrote but given that you are familiar with my previous postings I am quite surprised that you miss-interpreted what I wrote.
To be honest I don’t feel that I have directly attacked anyone, including yourself. I have simply expressed my view that your continuing attempts to undermine the Party’s leadership on the basis of little more than supposition is as you say ill advised. As you also say you are quite at liberty to ban me from what after all is your site but if you choose to do so then you should be quite clear precisely why you are banning me. As far as I can see all I am guilty of is having and expressing a contrary point of view to yours.
I am glad that you agree with and wholeheartedly support everything John McDonnell said in his opening statement, as this includes his information that the report was quite properly commissioned by general secretary Jennie Formby and its existence was well known to him.
I question your suggestion that his statement being made after the report was leaked has any bearing on this. Of course it was made then; the report wasn’t an issue before. You undermine your own argument with such silly quibbles.
Yes, he says Starmer has launched an investigation and he supports it. That’s Mr McDonnell’s opinion and he’s welcome to it. My point was about his knowledge of the report, which you claim was completely secret and unknown to Labour front-benchers.
Your comments on supposition are not supportable. You can’t attack me on grounds that I dreamed up an argument and then go off doing the same thing yourself. You simply don’t know what happened. Get over yourself.
And your desire to deny the personal attack on me is deplorable.
This correspondence – for now, as I’m sure the matter of the report won’t go away – is over.