Why are critics of Vox Political using Rosie Duffield, of all people, to attack?

This Site has spent years exposing Duffield’s many shortcomings – her hypocrisy, her questionable behaviour, her appalling treatment of colleagues, and her repeated undermining of her own party.

Vox Political has never been a supporter of hers, and there’s ample evidence to prove it.

But when even Duffield is owed an apology from the Labour Party leadership – on the basis of their own recent statements – then we all have a duty to say so.

That doesn’t mean endorsing her views.

It means pointing out the staggering hypocrisy of Keir Starmer’s Labour in retrospectively validating the beliefs for which others, like Duffield, were hounded out

The record speaks for itself

Here’s a comprehensive sample of what Vox Political has said about Rosie Duffield over the years:

• She undermined Jeremy Corbyn by attending an anti-Labour rally and backing a flawed definition of antisemitism: “In return [for her 2017 win], it seems she has undermined her leader… supporting the Jewish Labour Movement that has framed at least one high-profile Labour member with anti-Semitism accusations.”
• She participated in the political lynching of Marc Wadsworth: “Rosie Duffield seems a nasty character… marched in the ‘lynch’ mob with Ruth Smeeth and others… campaigned for Chris Williamson to get the same treatment…”
• She broke Covid rules to engage in an affair: “So she’s an adulteress. Shocking behaviour, and a terrible example to set.”
• She gave dishonest interviews to rehabilitate herself: “Former Labour whip Rosie Duffield is trying to reclaim the moral high ground by playing the victim and we need to reject her.”
• She falsely claimed abuse to dodge party conference: “Where readers could have expected to see evidence to support her claim, all we got was this…”
• She was accused of tweeting transphobic bile: “[Keir Starmer’s Labour] allows a Labour MP (Rosie Duffield) to get away with repeatedly Tweeting transphobic bile.”
• She campaigned for Chris Williamson’s expulsion: “Labour MPs… who have vilified Mr Williamson… all deserve to be subjected to the same disciplinary procedure… Rosie Duffield.”
• She ducked hustings in 2024: “Duffield was ‘ducking democracy’ by avoiding appearing at hustings before the 2024 general election.”
• She broke lockdown, claimed victimhood, and offered no evidence for abuse claims: “She said: ‘The people who threaten me I don’t think are actually likely to harm me.’ Which people are these? We haven’t seen any evidence.”
• She used DARVO tactics to shift blame: “Isn’t that exactly what Duffield is trying to do?”
• She resigned from Labour with a self-serving letter but made some valid points: “Knowing Duffield, the best that can be said is that she has made herself seem the lesser of two evils…”
• Even rare agreement with her is clearly contextualised: “I also find myself in rarer agreement with Canterbury MP Rosie Duffield… That doesn’t mean I suddenly support her in all her views.”

That’s a list that should make it unambiguous. I am not a supporter of Rosie Duffield.

So why defend her right to an apology now?

Because the principle matters.

Duffield was forced out of the Labour Party for views that have since been tacitly accepted by its leadership.

Whether you agree with those views or not — and I’ve repeatedly stated I am not an expert on gender politics and prefer to stay out of that debate — the party should not punish someone for holding beliefs it now effectively endorses.

The Forstater ruling made it clear that gender-critical beliefs are protected under the Equality Act, and the judge explicitly stated this did not give cover to discrimination against trans people.

Keir Starmer has now pivoted to adopt this position. So where is the justice for the people who were expelled for holding it in the past?

Duffield is not alone in deserving an apology.

There are dozens — perhaps hundreds — of former Labour members and activists who were expelled, suspended or marginalised under the Starmer regime for beliefs, statements or associations that are far less questionable than Duffield’s.

It is their plight I care about.

The party must be held accountable for its double standards.

And if highlighting the hypocrisy of the Duffield case helps achieve that, so be it.

This is not a defence of Duffield. It’s a demand for consistency.

Critics who accuse me of supporting her are either misinformed or being deliberately misleading. They should read the evidence above.

If we can’t recognise injustice just because we don’t like the person on the receiving end, we are not helping trans rights. We are hurting the cause of justice for all.

Sometimes, doing the right thing means defending the rights of someone you strongly oppose. That’s not weakness. That’s integrity.