Feel free to copy this image and share it anywhere you think people should see it.
I never thought I would find myself in agreement with the lunatics from Labour Against Anti-Semitism.
But their call for an independent review of all historic reports of anti-Jewish racism in the Labour Party since Jeremy Corbyn became leader in 2015 is right on the button.
It was a reaction to a new plan announced by Keir Starmer and Angela Rayner, for an independent complaints process in line with recommendations by the Equality and Human Rights Commission earlier this year.
As with all such plans by politicians, the real issue is what’s missing, rather than what is included.
The EHRC found that no fewer than 60 per cent of the cases it examined involved discrimination against the respondent – the person accused of anti-Semitism – by the Labour Party while it was supposed to be pursing an independent inquiry.
Starmer – whose strategy since becoming Labour leader has been to use false accusations of anti-Semitism to persecute prominent left-wingers and eject them from the party under false pretences – has made no plans to rectify this.
I had to take the party to court to prove that Labour threw away its own regulations to falsely accuse and expelling me.
So let’s have that “full review” of all cases since 2015.
And let’s see how many other members were falsely accused by lying Labour officers from Starmer’s wing of the party.
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.
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!
Please share the image, or even tweet it to @Keir_Starmer if you like it.
The latest victims of Keir Starmer’s politically-motivated purge of Labour Party members – using anti-Semitism as the excuse – are left-wing Jews.
It is perfectly possible for Jewish people to be anti-Semitic, of course.
This Site took Starmer to task for taking donations from one such anti-Semite only two days ago, at the time of writing.
The fact that he takes cash from an anti-Semite (and has apparently ignored demands for him to hand back the money), while victimising innocent people merely highlights the hypocrisy at the heart of his New Pale Blue Labour.
This is not the first time this acclaimed mathematician and philosopher has had his Labour membership suspended. There was no substance to those accusations either.
The other high-profile Jewish suspension was that of Naomi Wimborne-Idrissi – for being “the wrong kind of Jew”, as this video makes clear:
BREAKING: Jewish Socialist Naomi Wimborne-Idrissi has been suspended from the Labour Party pic.twitter.com/7jxlhPIgTC
It wouldn’t surprise me if the video above is the reason for her suspension, even though there is no offensive material in it (unless you’re one of Labour’s current hard-right leadership).
Commentators have drawn the obvious conclusion – that Starmer’s Labour Party is inherently, institutionally anti-Semitic:
The current iteration of the Labour Party is declaring itself not only overtly hostile to leftists but also any Jews who demand the right to think for themselves. If systemic purges of Jews from the Party isn’t anti-Semitism, I do not know what is: https://t.co/1PkkqNiAEj
Maybe I am getting this wrong but labelling jewish people who back Corbyn as 'self-hating jews' and putting them on a list of 'bad Jews' is pretty offensive.
It really has come to something when people supposedly fighting anti-semitism are cheering the suspension of a Jewish socialist who supports Mr Corbyn. Makes you think, eh?! Some nasty people about imo.
2/2 in the Tory Party! Her honesty has been rewarded with a kick in the teeth! Cannot believe what Labour has become! WHEN WE NEEDED YOU MOST, you were nowhere to be seen! Brexit in less than a month & you're too busy with this????
But then, what can you expect from a party that takes huge amounts of money in donations from an anti-Semite?
Meanwhile – and connected: Twitter’s harassment of left-wing political voices continues. After Kerry-Anne Mendoza’s accounts were restored to her, she found herself forced to say this:
And the latest target of the vexatious campaign to suspend left-wing @Twitter accounts is @Cornish_Damo
Someone needs to take action on this. It’s a clear abuse of the reporting process designed to suppress free speech of anti-racists, by racists. It’s targeted harassment.
— Kerry-Anne Mendoza 🏳️🌈🏴 (@TheMendozaWoman) December 3, 2020
It didn’t last long but by now we’re getting used to the tactic and learning how to fight it:
Complain to Twitter UK CEO @Cornish_Damo it is a breach of s1 Protection from Harassment Act and Twitter are complicit in that harrasment by failing to investigate. Make a SAR to Twitter too. pic.twitter.com/OIORorPCBO
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.
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!
David Abrahams: Labour leader Keir Starmer approached him for donations but may have to hand the cash back after it was revealed he had attacked fellow Jewish people with different political opinions as “self-hating Jews”, which is an anti-Semitic smear.
Mainstream media types are focusing on the Islamophobic aspect of philanthropist (it says here) David Abrahams’s comments.
Why?
Even though he may have been heavily involved with the Jewish Labour Movement and Labour Friends of Israel, it seems very clear to me – and, I think, to anybody with a brain – that he is a raving anti-Semite.
Look at the comments in black that are quoted in Ben’s tweet, below:
I much preferred the Labour Party when it was funded by its mass membership. It thrived on people power & we didn’t need the likes of rich racists such as David Abraham’s.
“Self-hating Jew” (or Jews), according to the Urban Dictionary, is the derogatory code phrase for Jewish people “who speak out against the actions or policies of the government of Israel, Zionists or other Jewish controlled organizations”.
It is not a description of people who actually hate themselves because they are Jewish.
It is an attack on Jewish people who hold different political views from Jews who do support the actions and policies of the government of Israel, Zionists and other Jewish-controlled organisations (that, I would add for the sake of clarity, also support the Israeli government and the kind of Zionism it professes).
It is also clearly anti-Semitic, because it attacks what these people are, and claims that they are not what they should be.
So this Abrahams character is an anti-Semite, right? Or at the very least it seems he has put forward anti-Semitic views.
The Islamophobic tripe he is said to have come out with is bad enough, but this seems to put the seal on the nature of the man.
What does it say about Keir Starmer that this is the kind of person the new New Labour leader approaches to fund his party, now that the membership is dwindling down to him, Angela Rayner and Luke Akehurst?
Now, after the embarrassing facts have become public, Starmer is being urged to hand back the cash – to give an assurance that he won’t have any truck with the kind of racism that’s being pushed here.
David Abrahams stopped donating money to Labour in 2016. The Times reported a fortnight ago that he is now financially supporting the party again after receiving a letter from @Keir_Starmer
Trouble is, Starmer asked for Abrahams to contribute, knowing full well what kind of man he is – whatever kind of man he really is.
Also, a recent report on shocking levels of Islamophobia within the Labour Party received only a lukewarm reception from Starmer.
And Labour’s record proves it is happy to smear as anti-Semites Jews who don’t support the pro-Israel, aggressive-Zionist pose that Starmer has been pushing.
So will he hand back the cash?
And if he does, how will he keep Labour’s finances from falling apart?
NOTE: This is not the first time donations to the Labour Party by David Abrahams have been controversial. In 2007 he was at the heart of the so-called “donorgate” row that forced former leader Gordon Brown to launch an inquiry into party funding – and prompted the Electoral Commission to call the police.
He had given more than £650,000 to Labour using the names of associates, and told the BBC he had “gifted funds to my friends and colleagues” so they could make donations on his behalf because he was a “very private person who did not seek publicity”.
It was thought to have been a breach of the law on transparent disclosure, but Abrahams was subsequently cleared by the police.
The result of Gordon Brown’s inquiry has yet to be published, it seems.
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.
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!
Nadia Whittome: her behaviour is all the more vexing because she has no reason to be loyal to Keir Starmer – he sacked her as a Parliamentary Private Secretary because she voted against a Bill that would have protected soldiers from prosecution if they participated in acts of torture overseas, and briefed the right-wing Guido Fawkes blog about the sacking BEFORE telling her.
A Labour MP who had been considered to be on the left of the party and who said Jeremy Corbyn should be reinstated when his membership was suspended has become a turncoat, it seems.
Despite her own comments about Corbyn, it seems Nadia Whittome does not believe that her peers in the party should have the same right, as she stated in a Tweet following a meeting of Nottingham East Labour Party (she is MP for that constituency but not a member of the CLP):
Nadia, you’ve publicly stated Corbyn should have whip re-instated. Why can’t you extend that right to members in your own CLP? This would at least make sense if you thought Corbyn shouldn’t have whip.
It seems the agenda of last Friday’s CLP meeting included a motion that called for Corbyn’s reinstatement, the lifting of disciplinary measures from others for discussing the issues as well as for the removal of David Evans, General Secretary of the Labour Party, who imposed Corbyn’s suspension and the ban on discussing it that led to the suspensions of other party members.
Ms Whittome objected to the motion, despite having spoken against Corbyn’s suspension herself, it seems.
What are we to make of that? That she considers herself to be above her party colleagues? That she agrees that, while she may discuss such matters with impunity, it is right that rank-and-file party members be suspended for daring to do so? That she thinks party members should not be allowed to register their opposition when party officers flout rules and regulations?
That’s how it looks to This Writer.
Worse, Ms Whittome passed comment on an incident in which a Jewish CLP member left the meeting, claiming they did not feel safe there.
It appears that all was not as she led people to believe. Here‘s a statement from the CLP itself:
“There was only one interruption during the meeting. This arose when one member stated that in his personal experience he had never witnessed any antisemitism in any of our meetings. As he continued with his personal view, another member shouted out – in a manner that some found to be aggressive – that he himself had suffered personal, antisemitic abuse from the person speaking, who was taken aback and stated that this wasn’t true; the Chair intervened and tried to calm things down. At this point the member who had interrupted declared that he no longer felt safe at the meeting and left.
“The member who left has changed his narrative on social media to stating that the member he accused had ‘witnessed an anti-Semitic attack’ on him rather than had attacked him personally.”
Ms Whittome also mentioned the possibility that disciplinary proceedings had been launched against a member of the CLP. This appears to be CLP chair Louise Regan, a former NUT president and (I really hope this has nothing to do with it) vice-chair of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign.
It seems Ms Regan’s party membership was, in fact, suspended:
Breaking: I understand the chair of Nottingham East CLP has been suspended tonight. This is prompt and effective action by the @UKLabour leadership.
This can only be for allowing the motion to be heard (it was passed by 23 votes to 10). Ms Regan’s conduct during the meeting was described in the CLP statement as “exemplary” and Ms Whittome is said to have joined in thanking her for the way she chaired it.
If that was everything, it would be bad enough, but it seems even worse than that, as evidence has come to light claiming that Ms Whittome actually participated in a smear campaign against Ms Regan. Read:
Nadia's half-hearted support (if you can even call it that) for Jeremy Corbyn and her appalling statement yesterday don't surprise me. She is heavily associated with the Alliance for Workers' Liberty (AWL), an Islamophobic pseudo-Trotskyist cult that is committed to Zionism. 2/4
Of course, the AWL utterly detest Louise and ran a vicious smear campaign against her during the selection last year. I'm sure they're rubbing their hands with glee today. I hope this episode finally wakes people up to the sort of 'left-wingers' we have in our midst. 4/4
I've just received screenshots of sickening messages from Nadia Whittome, in which she directly participated in the smear campaign against the now-suspended Nottingham East CLP Chair, Louise Regan. Of course, publicly, she denounced the abuse Louise received. See below ↓
These false allegations have been repeated again and again by Nottingham AWL members, with whom Nadia is good friends. The AWL fiercely supported her campaign. Publicly, Nadia denounced the abuse they sent to Louise but, privately, it looks like she was using it to get support.
Maybe Mr Kazmi has his own axe to grind (although, considering the number of Tweets by other people linking Ms Whittome with this AWL group, this seems doubtful). In any case, This Writer will be happy to hear what the MP has to say about all this.
At the moment, it seems likely she has fatally wounded her reputation among the very people on whom she would have to rely in order to be re-elected in any future Parliamentary poll.
And at the very least, it seems likely that she should expect a flood of complaints to Labour’s Governance and Legal Unit, that her comments have brought the party into disrepute – the very charge which, when used against her colleagues, she supported.
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.
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!
Angela Rayner (here with her boss Keir Starmer): hypocrites – and very possibly anti-Semites without acknowledging it.
Note to Sienna Rodgers at LabourList: the headline on your report is wrong. It should have read Angela Rayner is a big ol’ hypocrite.
In the article, Rayner states that the findings of the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s report on anti-Semitism in the Labour Party are not open to debate:
There’s no debating what the EHRC said.
LabourList also reported another statement she made to the Jewish Labour Movement’s conference – insultingly held on the International Day of Solidarity with Palestinians – that she and Keir Starmer attended rather than support the Palestine solidarity event:
If I have to suspend thousands and thousands of members, we will do that.
The two comments are mutually exclusive. The report clearly states that
We have concluded that the practice of political interference was unlawful… The Labour Party should… implement clear rules and guidance that prohibit and sanction political interference in the complaints process.
Her threat to suspend thousands – a warning that the leadership is planning to purge the party of anybody who dissents against its dictatorship – is itself political interference in the process, as it is an attempt to suppress complaints by members against the actions of the leadership of which she is a member. Therefore she is not only debating the legitimacy of the EHRC’s finding; she is ignoring it altogether.
Remember that this is all about the attack on Jeremy Corbyn by Keir Starmer, party general secretary David Evans, and others at the very top of the Labour leadership including Rayner herself, despite the fact that she once said this:
She is a hypocrite. She has revealed her true colours. She cannot be trusted. She should be ejected from her position of power.
This will be hard because the Labour Party leadership has a well-known track record of rejecting any complaints against its own members and friends, no matter how well-justified they may be.
But we have all seen this behaviour and we are talking about it:
Big from @AngelaRayner as she seems to back suspending ‘thousands and thousands of members’ for wanting to demonstrate support for Jeremy Corbyn having the whip returned.
This whole thing just shows the duplicity and shiftiness of those at the top of the Labour Party.
David Evans explicitly stated the disciplinary process against Corbyn is now over. What we now have is leaders doing the precise opposite of what the EHRC asks for, interfering. https://t.co/mK5JOtVyxZ
Yes, it's 'totally unacceptable' to say precisely what the EHRC report says you can say, and which you have the freedom of speech to say, and which is obviously and provably true, in case it upsets some right-wing bigots.
If this is what @AngelaRayner has said it is dishonest. CLPs are debating whether the whip should be reinstated to Jeremy Corbyn: that is about democratic procedure not antisemitism
Genuine Q: have any CLPs passed motions against EHRC report or that antisemitism isn't a problem? https://t.co/HryXTRFAWm
Could Rayner clarify what, if any, powers she has to suspend "thousands of members" and how her doing that conforms with the EHRC recommendation of an investigation and disciplinary process free of leadership intervention? https://t.co/0ekPF64aj3
Because they ain't listening to us, that's for sure. 😒
— MerryMichaelW 🎗 😷 #T & T #BlackLivesMatter #BDS (@MerryMichaelW) November 29, 2020
With one side of her mouth she spits vitriol at Corbyn for his comments in which he said the EHRC report should be implemented, & with the other she outright defies the EHRC report criticism of political interference in disciplinary cases, saying she'll personally suspend 1,000s! https://t.co/KTOd6IQtIE
“It is not legitimate for the leadership to influence, make recommendations or make decisions on complaints.. The Labour Party needs to restore confidence in the independence of its complaints process”—EHRC
"If I have to suspend thousands & thousands of members…”—Angela Rayner https://t.co/vYzG1G8urK
A disgraceful way of approaching political debate here from Angela Rayner. She is talking about conducting a purge, let's be clear about that: there is no other way to describe this. https://t.co/ff2BJAxw5c
The Labour leadership are now deliberately shitting all over the recommendations of the EHRC report that they've used as an excuse to attack and vilify Jeremy Corbyn (despite the fact he said the EHRC recommendations should be implemented!).
— CrémantCommunarde#ActivistLawyer ⚖️ 🌻 ✋ (@0Calamity) November 29, 2020
There isn't thousands and thousands of antisemites in the party, @AngelaRayner . Corbyn was allowed to comment on the EHRC. He was allowed back to the party. If you fancy to play "I'm the dictator's best mate" go for it. But you showing who you really are and ppl won't forget it https://t.co/HxdFMpammj
And organisations that formerly wanted Rayner’s support and endorsement are now rejecting her. To be honest, I don’t know if the following tweet was connected with what she said on LabourList, but I anticipate that this is the soft footfall that precedes a stampede:
What a massive let-down and huge sell-out @AngelaRayner turned out to be. Please remove your support from the LGBTQ+ community Angela. The oppressed stand with the oppressed, we don't stand with apartheid committing states, and we don't stand with traitors who ignore that.
Oh, and by the way, Labour is not completely irredeemable. Members across the UK did come out in support of Palestine, unlike their treacherous leader and deputy leader. Here’s a tweet from Wales:
Well done to all across Wales who have taken the time to express solidarity with the Palestinian people, who continue to live in dire, oppressive circumstances under a brutal, right-wing Israeli government. 👇✊#palestineday#EndApartheid#StopAnnexationhttps://t.co/F85HpIQeXE
Let’s remember that Rayner – and her vile boss Starmer – are saying that they are taking all this action against the good members of their own party because of hurt, harm and injury done to Jewish people in the UK.
What about the harm done to Jewish people who agree with the viewpoint Rayner, Starmer and the others are attacking?
Genuine question @AngelaRayner@Keir_Starmer will you meet urgently with representatives of the many Jews who support Corbyn and think you are getting this disastrously wrong? If not, why not?
By the way THESE Jews feel you are injuring THEM. Don’t these Jews count Keir, Angela? https://t.co/HeU48hgIbo
That’s right. These Jews feel that Rayner, Starmer and the others are attacking them. And Rayner, Starmer et al treat them as though they don’t even exist.
Isn’t that attitude a little… you know… anti-Semitic?
Finally, Labour’s deplorable leaders need to acknowledge that this confrontation between them and party members arose because the EHRC found that the leadership had been interfering in investigations of anti-Semitism complaints in order to make it seem that there were more anti-Semites in the party than was the case.
A court found only last week that the process of investigating accusations against This Writer – me, Mike Sivier – was perverted in order to produce a false finding against me.
Labour failed to follow its own investigation procedure. It did not adequately inform me of the nature of the allegations against me (in fact, the party changed those claims as it went on, in order to ‘fix’ the result), and a party officer leaked false claims about me – including a lie that I was a Holocaust denier – to The Sunday Times (which subsequently had to publish a lengthy correction).
And I’m not the only one who has suffered this treatment. The EHRC report found that, of the investigations it examined, no fewer than 60 per cent suffered from bias calculated to discriminate against the respondent – against the person accused of anti-Semitism.
Where are the apologies for lying and smearing us? I still receive abusive messages accusing me of anti-Semitism, even now. It may be that I will continue receiving them for the rest of my life. The Labour Party is to blame for that. Where is the contrition? Where is the apology for that?
Has the Labour Party followed its own rules for investigating the complaint against Jeremy Corbyn?
After any party member is accused, they have to be given warning of the claim against them, with questions to answer in order to give their side, and two weeks to answer them.
Then the party has to investigate the validity of the complaint – a matter that can take several months.
Then the issue goes before a panel from the National Executive Committee.
As far as we know, Jeremy Corbyn still doesn’t know the accusation against him. How could he? Keir Starmer hasn’t been able to get it right in any of the many interviews about it in the two weeks and five days since it happened.
Starmer keeps saying silly things, such as that Corbyn had said anti-Semitism had been exaggerated. He didn’t; he said the extent of A/S in the Labour Party had been exaggerated by certain people for political reasons.
Starmer’s insistence on exaggerating what Corbyn did would suggest that he is one such person. Wouldn’t it?
I’ve already touched on the next point: nowhere near enough time has passed for a proper investigation, according to Labour’s rules, to be carried out.
So it seems any discussion by any NEC members today (November 17) can only take the form of a “show trial”. If he loses his party membership as a result, the party will be accused of holding a kangaroo court.
Mention of kangaroo courts brings This Writer to my own mistreatment by Labour and the fact that my case against the party, for breaching its contract with me by failing to mount a proper investigation and by passing false information about me to the newspapers, will return to court in a week.
The hearing at 2pm on November 24 will take place by telephone – but space is being made available at Bristol Civil Justice Centre for interested members of the public to attend and hear the verdict.
This hearing may take an unexpected path as the Equality and Human Rights Commission published its own report on the way Labour has handled accusations of anti-Semitism since the trial.
I think some of that report should have been included as evidence. I am concerned that the Labour leadership postponed its publication until after the trial took place – possibly in the belief that the verdict would be announced on the same day.
It wasn’t. I hope to bring the judge’s attention to Chapter Six of the report, which gives details of serious failures of the Labour complaint investigation process, and to another part that is pertinent to my case.
I also submitted a request for information to the EHRC, about whether it considered my own case. The organisation has promised to respond before the hearing on November 24.
(This means it will have replied within two weeks of receiving the request. Contrast that with Labour’s response when I sent the party a Subject Access Request: it took the party two years and two months to deliver only a partial response.)
If the verdict goes in my favour, then doubt will be cast on the relevance of Labour’s decision today. And I expect the verdict to go in my favour.
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.
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!
Keir Starmer’s Labour leadership has shown its innate bias yet again, with an investigation but no suspension after multiple complaints against Lisa Nandy. Meanwhile left-wingers continue to face immediate suspension.
The party’s infamous Disputes office is said to be investigating multiple complaints after Nandy described anti-Semitism on BBC Radio 4 as “a form of racism that punches up”.
The Prole Starreported that “Nandy’s remarks have been equally offensive to other BAME communities who felt the idea of ‘punching down’ depicted them as being somehow beneath the racists attacking them”.
And despite being chair of Labour Friends of Palestine, Nandy failed to secure a meeting with Starmer for leading British Palestinians who are concerned that the party’s approach to antisemitism was preventing them raising real abuses inflicted every day by the Israeli state on occupied Palestine.
He said he was too busy. And she also declined to meet them.
Contrast this with the treatment of Wirral Labour councillor Jo Bird, who has been suspended by the party for a third time after commenting on the EHRC’s report about anti-Semitism in the party, and on the suspension of former leader Jeremy Corbyn that followed it. Cllr Bird is Jewish.
After Bristol West CLP voted to condemn Jeremy Corbyn’s suspension and demand his reinstatement to the party, and to oppose any and all politically motivated disciplinary actions against the left by the leadership, chair Dr Hannah Little and co-secretary Darran McLaughlin have been suspended by the party. No complaints were said to have been made.
This is clear victimisation. The two named members may have allowed the motion to be discussed but every member present had a vote. Why have they not been accused? Is it too much bother? Is it easier to select two high-profile members for a “show trial”?
Meanwhile, Labour members across the UK continue to defy Starmers diktat that they must not criticise his leadership over the EHRC report and/or about Corbyn’s suspension – including in his own Holborn constituency.
The Highgate branch has expressed its solidarity with Corbyn as a “lifelong campaigner against racism and antisemitism”. The motion stated: “We believe that unity, not division, is important for the Party to make progress and effectively challenge racism, fascism, antisemitism and harassment in whatever form this may take” in a clear jab at Starmer’s protestations that he wants to unify the Labour Party.
His idea of unity seems to be to drive out or silence anybody who disagrees with his diktats.
This Site has said it before and no doubt I’ll say it again: Starmer can say what he likes but he cannot stop party members from acting in accordance with the rules and there is no rule to stop them discussing the activities of the leadership.
If you all do it, there’s nothing he can do about it.
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.
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!
StarmerLabour mouth Lisa Nandy was doing the media rounds this morning, telling us that her party’s leadership wants Joe Biden to be the new US president.
There’s nothing wrong with that if she had stopped there but she didn’t.
She went on to say that this was because Biden had supported former Tory prime minister Margaret Thatcher’s Falklands war.
That is not a good position for Labour to take and I’ll explain the reason,
Once the Falklands had been invaded by General Galtieri’s Argentinian forces (he wanted control of huge oil reserves beneath the South Atlantic), the UK had to go out and liberate the people who lived there and identify as UK citizens – there’s no doubt about that.
But it is widely argued that the reason they needed rescuing in the first place is that Thatcher withdrew naval support from the area, deliberately making the Falklands an attractive target for the Argentinian dictator.
The intention was tacitly to invite him into starting a war that Thatcher could win, in order to create a surge of public support for herself and the Conservative Party here in the UK that would carry them to a stronger victory at the next general election. And it succeeded.
That’s the belief. In the light of it, Nandy’s comment is tone deaf:
Biden has a long history of standing with the British people because 'he stood with the Thatcher government over the Falklands'.
This is Labour now is it Lisa Nandy!?! Pro the spurious war Thatcher started to win an election.pic.twitter.com/PYskSDmEF6
It shows that StarmerLabour rejects its own party as it was in the early 1980s, preferring to trumpet its support for the Tory leader who championed the neoliberal ideology that brought disaster down on working-class families across the UK.
It should come as no surprise that Nandy said this was a good thing. Her talent for media stupidity is fast becoming legendary. Here…
Lisa Nandy went on Radio 4 to announce that antisemitism is a form of racism that “punches up.” Bafflingly antisemitic behaviour here. Genuinely galling. pic.twitter.com/ClkCv1RGwB
… is a clip of her from the BBC’s PM on October 29, presenting the anti-Semitic view that all Jews are rich and that hatred of them is “punching up”. She gets away with making racist comments – and inciting racism with them – because she is on Starmer’s side and for no other reason.
Sadly, she would probably have got away with such a comment, even under Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership, either because complaints would have been dismissed by right-wingers in the Governance and Legal Unit who would want her to continue as an embarrassment to Corbyn, or because Corbyn, assailed by false accusations, did not want to rock the boat. That was his weakness and ultimately the reason he lost two elections and his Labour Party membership has now been suspended.
Fortunately the tweeting public has no such restraint:
I remember when the @LeFTCampaign organised an excellent post-election meeting in Wigan in January this year, and some asked why we hadn’t invited the sitting MP, Lisa Nandy, to which we simply replied “because it’s a meeting for socialists”
Is Lisa Nandy quite well? Does she actually know what the Falklands was about? She's so embarrassingly useless. Nothing she says is based on any firm knowledge or expertise. Why are people like her so vaunted in Labour? https://t.co/B9iVjz4nFt
— PeakIpsedixitism #IStandWithKeiraBell🕸️🗣🟥🇪🇺 (@Jessica12uk) November 4, 2020
It's telling that the most positive thing Lisa Nandy could say about Joe Biden is that he's pro-war. Says it all. https://t.co/VKRR7vQ1bi
— Frank Owen's Legendary Paintbrush (@WarmongerHodges) November 4, 2020
Lisa Nandy says "this is a very dangerous moment for democracy"…
Ironic since she sits in a shadow cabinet who threw their own election twice because they prefererred a far-right populist regime to a caring democratic socialist Government#PoliticsLive
— Politically Homeless #ShockDoctrine #NHSPay15 (@respeak_uk) November 4, 2020
Other comments by the daft Nandy have also attracted justified criticism:
No, the problem is that Labour MPs like Lisa Nandy would rather lose to the Tories than allow Jeremy Corbyn to become PM. They would rather smear their own party as institutionally antisemitic than oppose Tory bills that legalise state murder. https://t.co/6wIWI4Eq7n
— Frank Owen's Legendary Paintbrush (@WarmongerHodges) November 4, 2020
Finally, this comment stands as a harsh reminder to us all of the backstabbing ways adopted by Nandy and her kind of Labour MP:
No Lisa Nandy.
That was in the UK in June 2017 & December 2019 but you still managed to screw us over… https://t.co/0sNDoz62Do
If they get into power, they would backstab all of the voters who put them there.
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.
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!
Apt: Keir Starmer reckons he was named after original Labour leader Hardie – but can anyone doubt that his illustrious forerunner might have said these words, if shown how Starmer has degraded the party Hardie helped to found?
Alex Nunns used to be Jeremy Corbyn’s speech writer, so it is true that he has a stake in this debate.
But his analysis of Keir Starmer’s role in the decision to suspend Corbyn’s Labour Party membership – a much larger role than the current Labour leader wanted to admit and one that puts him in breach of EHRC recommendations he promised to uphold – is carried out in such a way as to foil all critics.
Keir Starmer took the decision to suspend Jeremy Corbyn. Labour claimed the General Secretary did in a flawed attempt to evade the charge of political interference—the very thing the EHRC condemned. But Keir couldn't resist boasting about his "difficult decision" on the radio. pic.twitter.com/fhkHr40p1u
At first he said general secretary David Evans took the action, but then added “I’m not going to shy away from difficult decisions”, and “we made a very difficult decision”. He shouldn’t have been anywhere near it but clearly he was.
Worse follows:
For example, when Jeremy Corbyn's LOTO was consulted on Ken Livingstone—in order to suspend him (a detail which rather ruins the usual narrative)—that was political interference, according to the EHRC. Remember, Labour has briefed that Starmer was consulted on Corbyn. pic.twitter.com/0amATKX6Pi
The above is self-explanatory. On the day he said he would honour the recommendations of the EHRC report, Starmer contradicted one – and a major one at that.
In its first press statement, Labour didn't say the General Secretary made the decision to suspend Corbyn, but later strongly briefed journalists that he did—perhaps suddenly aware it wasn't supposed to look like a political decision.
It was going to look like a political decision, no matter what. Notice of investigations – let alone suspensions – should only ever be issued after the Labour Party has received a complaint about a party member. Who complained about Corbyn?
As far as anybody can tell, nobody did. And if it was made by the general secretary – whether in consultation with the party leader or not…
So, to convince people there was no political interference in the suspension of Jeremy Corbyn, Labour went out of its way to say it wasn't the Leader who did it, but the General Secretary—which, according to the EHRC, makes no difference. It's still political interference.
Then there’s the issue of whether the Governance and Legal Unit (GLU) – the party employees who investigate complaints against members – is subject to political interference itself.
There was considerable controversy when it was alleged that someone was appointed to the GLU in a political appointment by Jeremy Corbyn – but it seems Starmer has done the same:
Bringing this back to Corbyn, on an all-staff call on Friday—perhaps stung by NEC members having disputed that the General Secretary even has the power to suspend—staff were told he'd consulted Starmer's reported "enforcer." Just can't escape the charge of political interference.
Starmer has gone on to lie – on television – about the statement made by Jeremy Corbyn that led to his suspension:
Jeremy Corbyn didn't deny there's a problem with antisemitism in the Labour Party, didn't say it was "just" exaggerated, and didn't say it was "just" factional. He said "Anyone claiming there is no antisemitism in the Labour Party is wrong." Starmer knows that, of course.
So Starmer lied about Corbyn; he has been misrepresenting what Corbyn said in an attempt to make his words seem worse than they were.
Starmer also lied about the EHRC report; he either participated in or oversaw political interference when the report demanded an end to it, and he appears to have participated in unlawful indirect discrimination against Corbyn.
We already know that the current Labour leadership is lying about anti-Semitism; Angela Rayner’s words in an interview yesterday show that neither she, nor Starmer, nor Evans (it seems) have any interest in whether an allegation of anti-Semitism is accurate. They say if a statement causes “hurt” or “distress”, that is enough. It isn’t. Anybody can say a comment caused them distress and it won’t matter a fig. The only way to judge these allegations is against a set of clear definitions – such as the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism that Labour has adopted and that Corbyn did not break anywhere in his statement.
Otherwise, a high-profile suspension like Corbyn’s may lead to counter-allegations of libel by the Labour Party (as embodied in its general secretary, Evans).
These are big lies, for which Starmer has no defence.
He has deliberately tried to mislead party members and the general public.
In This Writer’s opinion, that makes him unfit to lead the Labour Party.
(If I’m honest, it makes him unfit to be a member of the Labour Party).
He needs to go – now. And if he won’t go willingly, he should be removed. Let’s see a call for a Vote Of ‘No Confidence’ from the membership. Who’ll table it?
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.
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!
Out in the dark: Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour Party membership has been suspended – illegally and undemocratically. Labour members are quitting in their thousands.
It doesn’t matter which way you cut it, Keir Starmer has sabotaged the Labour Party.
Overreacting after Jeremy Corbyn responded to the EHRC report on allegations of “institutional anti-Semitism” in the party, he has acted undemocratically and illegally – and seriously jeopardised Labour’s electability.
The report itself was entirely reasonable. It didn’t find the “institutional anti-Semitism” that was claimed, said it could only show two occasions when “agents” for whom the party was responsible displayed anti-Semitism, 23 cases when the leader’s office showed “political interference” in anti-Semitism complaints – often prejudiced against the accused, rather than against Jews, and 42 cases when the complaints process discriminated against the accused, rather than against Jews (out of 70 in both sets of cases).
Jeremy Corbyn, the Labour leader at the time, responded by saying the report’s recommendations should be implemented immediately. He would; he had been trying to improve the system since he first became aware that it was a shambles, back in 2016 – with some success from 2018 when he was able to replace an unsympathetic general secretary with one who supported his leadership.
He also said the scale of the problem was dramatically overstated for political reasons by opponents inside and outside the party, as well as by much of the media.
And Keir Starmer, the current party leader, flipped his lid.
In his own response he said anybody who claimed complaints of anti-Semitism against Labour were “exaggerated” has “no place in the party”. Shortly afterwards, Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour Party membership was suspended.
Starmer backed away from this act, leaving his new general secretary, David Evans, to justify it.
He could not. He provided no evidence that Corbyn had broken any Labour Party rules and could not show that Corbyn had said anything that was not – in fact – accurate.
The EHRC report corroborates Corbyn’s claims – and also shows that his right to make them is enshrined in law – in his human right to free speech.
And the decision is hypocritical. The report condemned political intervention in complaint cases – even to speed them up – but the decision to suspend Corbyn’s membership is a clear intervention by the office of the Leader Of The Opposition (LOTO).
I noted that Starmer has today tried to justify Corbyn’s suspension, telling the BBC’s Today programme ,”I made it clear the Labour Party I lead will not tolerate anti-Semitism, neither will it tolerate the argument that denies or minimises anti-Semitism in the Labour Party on the basis that it’s exaggerated or a factional row.”
This is only going to make it worse because it is a lie. Corbyn didn’t deny or minimise anti-Semitism on that basis. His claim that is was exaggerated is true, as shown by the EHRC report. And he didn’t say it was a factional row – just that “opponents” used to to cause problems – and again this is accurate.
I am not the only person clever enough to see this.
But you are unlikely to hear much in complaint from Labour Party members – because the party leadership has gagged them. Communications from Labour HQ have made it clear that anybody taking to the social media – or any other media – to criticise Starmer’s behaviour will face punishment themselves.
Starmer’s people even set up a dedicated fast-track complaints system to ensure that his supporters could report offenders quickly – again in contradiction of the EHRC report’s findings, which demanded a single, simple process for everyone.
I thought he said he accepted the report in its entirety and would implement its recommendations fully? It seems this was a lie.
The result? Labour Party members up and down the country have been cancelling their Direct Debits and quitting – despite the efforts of many more level heads to encourage them to stay and exert influence within the organisation, for sanity.
My own view was that, as Corbyn has not been expelled yet, and has himself appealed for people to sit tight until the situation can be resolved “amicably”, people who still enjoy the privilege of party membership – rather than having been thrown out under false pretences like myself – should stay and fight his corner for him.
It seems likely that Starmer will expel him eventually. Any other choice now will make him look weak.
But this will split the Labour Party.
People are leaving because Starmer has shown he is unfit to lead the party, let alone the country.
His decision to suspend Corbyn was undemocratic and illegal. He overrode party rules and the rule of law to do it. And he is a lawyer, remember.
How can any responsible voter allow such a man a chance to run a government and disregard the law there as well?
I can see us entering a period when Labour will be hindered either by a plethora of left-wing candidates standing in elections against it – splitting the Left vote and allowing the Conservatives in to more constituencies, or by a new left-wing party standing against it.
The latter would be This Writer’s preferred choice as it may drag Labour back towards its proper place in politics – in the same way that the existence of UKIP pulled the Conservative Party towards fascism and illegality.
Whatever the future holds, it seems clear that Starmer has sabotaged Labour’s electoral chances for the next few years, no matter what.
Was this what he wanted?
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.
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!
By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. This includes scrolling or continued navigation. more information
The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this.
