Despots: Keir Starmer (left) and his right-wing general secretary David Evans, have decided that Labour Party democracy only works during Conference – but none of the decisions mean anything in day-to-day business, it seems.
Apparently Keir Starmer and his gensec David Evans are changing Labour Party rules arbitrarily so they can ignore conference motions.
Here’s a link to the evidence:
Exclusive: ‘Conference only sovereign while it’s in session’ – Starmer/Evans’s excuse for ignoring motions – SKWAWKBOX https://t.co/qcJxyYGtJR
According to them – as advised to members of the NEC after this high-handed and self-entitled behaviour was questioned during a recent NEC meeting – conference is sovereign. But only when it’s actually in session.
In other words, any decision made by the representatives of Labour’s millions of union affiliates and rapidly-dwindling membership are binding – for the four or so days a year that conference actually meets. The rest of the time, Starmer and his henchpeople are free to do, say and decide whatever the hell they feel like, without regard for party democracy.
I’m pretty sure that’s not what the rule book says, but I haven’t seen a Labour Party rule book in a few years.
Also, those rules are pretty vague when you actually have to test them.
So it’s entirely possible that a court of law might find in Starmer and Evans’s favour, as one found in favour of Labour when I challenged the party for breach of contract a few years ago; the rule was too vague for me to win.
(Fortunately, the finding went in my favour in other respects, so I came out on top.)
But if Starmer and Evans really are saying decisions of the Labour Party Conference carry no weight in the day-to-day running of the party, then members have no reason to stay – because their decisions count for nothing.
And voters have no reason to support the Starmer party, because it does not respect democracy and should therefore have no opportunity to make the rules on how our national democracy works.
Right?
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:
Be among the first to know what’s going on! Here are the ways to manage it:
1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (in the right margin). You can then receive notifications of every new article that is posted here.
5) Join the uPopulus group at https://upopulus.com/groups/vox-political/
6) Join the MeWe page at https://mewe.com/p-front/voxpolitical
7) Feel free to comment!
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!
Rich kid Rishi Sunak: if he wants to stay in five-star hotels, why not put some of his own fortune into it, rather than spending on himself the public cash he keeps telling us is in such short supply.
It’s bad enough when the Tories hire private planes at huge expense to visit foreign countries – often for climate crisis summit meetings – but this shows it’s habitual.
And Tory protests that the spending is all on the record do not defend their position.
Here it is:
Labour is launching a campaign accusing government ministers and officials of spending taxpayer-funded credit cards on luxury travel and hotels, claiming they are using public money “like a cash machine”.
It states that [Rishi] Sunak stayed in the five-star Hotel Danieli in Venice when attending the G20 meeting of finance ministers in July 2021 as chancellor, with more than £4,500 spent on accommodation for Sunak and his aides.
[Greg] Hands is also singled out for staying for two nights in the £318 per night five-star Grand Hotel Petersberg in Koenigswinter, Germany, in order to attend a private gathering of European policymakers. Alok Sharma is listed as staying in a series of five-star hotels in Berlin, Saigon, Tianjin and twice in Seoul – at costs of up to £255 per night – during the 66 trips he made as Cop26 president. Labour said it cost at least £220,817 for his travel and hotels.
Under Sunak, the Treasury also hired a £3,600 chauffeur service for ministers and officials visiting Cop26 in November 2021. The same chauffeur service was hired by Nadhim Zahawi’s department for £1,040 during his own trip to Cop26.
Former minister Nigel Adams is named as spending £9,289 on a visit to Japan in July 2022 in order to “confirm the UK’s commitment to the Osaka Expo”, which takes place in 2025. Adams announced he was leaving the government five and a half weeks after the trip. Labour said a late request for an official from the Department for International Trade to accompany him added an extra £8,110 flight to the costs of the trip.
In 2012, the public accounts committee (PAC) criticised the use of five-star hotels and expensive transport costs.
Yes.
This is your money the Tories are spending on themselves – at a time when living costs are tight for you.
Instead of tightening their own belts and sharing your ordeal, they are rubbing your nose in it.
Because these entitled, over-privileged rich kids think they deserve it just for existing – and that you don’t, for the same reason.
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!
Lord Evans of Weardale: the standards committee chair is a former chief of MI5.
Boris Johnson’s rewrite of the Ministerial Code is leaving the public with questions to answer about whether standards are being eroded, according to a watchdog chief.
Lord Evans of Weardale, chairman of the independent Committee on Standards in Public Life, questioned Johnson’s decision to relax the rules so ministers no longer have to resign over minor breaches of the Ministerial Code, while refusing to allow investigations to happen independently.
Instead, ethics advisor Lord Geidt must still seek the prime minister’s consent before investigating – and Johnson may veto any such investigation.
Lord Evans said the change, while an improvement on the previous position, meant the adviser was still not “sufficiently independent”.
Lord Evans said:
“I think you’ve got to raise questions when you see the outcome of the police investigations and the Sue Gray report, and one or two of the other issues that have come up – I was outspoken myself in regard to the Owen Paterson business.
“So, there has been a lot of public disquiet about standards over the last six months.
“It’s one of those things that comes up from time to time and it’s really important to reassure people that we want to continue to maintain decent standards in this country.”
He continued:
“In terms of public confidence, I think independent investigation of breaches is critical.
“And that’s why we recommended both that there should be independent right to initiate investigations and also that, you know, when it’s a very minor breach, it might be more sensible to say, well, you don’t have to resign but there are other penalties.
“Our concern is that the Government chose to accept the range of penalties but did not accept fully the recommendation for independent investigation and determination of the facts.”
And he said it is up to Lord Geidt to decide his next move after Johnson insisted his police fine over a Covid rule-busting birthday bash did not constitute a breach of the ministerial code (because he had rewritten the Code to ensure that it did not).
The standards watchdog chief told the Today programme:
“He’s made his position very clear, that he felt in his report that was published this week that it was important that the Prime Minister should recognise that the partygate allegations and the outcome of that do have implications for the application of the ministerial code.
“Of course, the Prime Minister has subsequently written to him explaining why he believed that he didn’t breach the ministerial code in that regard.
“So, obviously, Lord Geidt will be giving consideration to what has been said. But obviously that’s a decision for him, to make up his mind on where he goes with this next.”
It seems Lord Evans is suggesting his fellow peer should protest the prime minister’s conduct in some way.
And why not? One does not prove oneself innocent of rule-breaking by re-writing the rules – nor does one demonstrate one’s own high ethical standards by refusing to allow independent investigation of one’s behaviour.
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!
There are many reasons to be hopeful after the first two days of the Labour conference.
Yes, you read that right: hopeful.
Okay, Keir Starmer and David Evans have gerrymandered votes so that Evans remains general secretary and only white men can get elected party leader.
But in the process they have demonstrated to the whole world that they are liars and that they are corrupt. And we’re not going to forget.
Grassroots Labour members across the UK know that David Evans is not their general secretary, because David Evans excluded and expelled members in his own interest, not that of the party.
They know that Keir Starmer is not their leader, because Keir Starmer betrayed them by stealing their voting rights.
But neither Starmer nor Evans will benefit because they forgot one important thing: Labour is a voluntary organisation.
The members they have betrayed won’t necessarily leave, and they don’t need to actively undermine the current leadership in a way that would allow Evans to give them the boot; they simply don’t need to help the current regime, either.
It is clear that, with Starmer positioning Labour significantly to the right of the Conservatives, left-wing activism has moved elsewhere – so left-wing activists will follow suit.
There are lots of interesting people playing much more interesting games than Starmer. And Labour can’t be the party of working people when it is being run by an upper-class, rich, knighted liar.
Without the activists who give Labour its credibility, the party won’t win any elections.
Starmer and his entitled cronies won’t stick around once they realise which way the wind is blowing. They won’t be able to; their backers won’t tolerate failure.
So his own choices at this year’s conference will probably lead to the end of Keir Starmer’s career. We’re watching him write his own political suicide note.
And then we’ll be able to take the party back.
It’s a long game that could have been avoided if certain people of the left had taken the required steps to excise the party of its right-wing entryists when they had the chance, but there’s no use regretting what is now history.
We can still influence politics in a big way – outside Labour. And the experience will probably make us all stronger.
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!
Corrupt: Labour members who voted to keep David Evans as Keir Starmer’s general secretary won’t care that he’s as bent as a nine-bob note, but for those of us who prize honesty and integrity, this recording of him explaining that he deliberately worked to restrict the rights of left-wing, Corbyn-supporting members is reason enough to quit Labour forever and let it sink in its own corruption.
Funny how these things turn up after corrupt creeps like Evans get confirmed in their rotten jobs, isn’t it?
Still, it’s unlikely that it would have changed the result of the vote, which was carried, apparently, by Starmer and Evans’s right-wing robots.
It does show that Evans is corrupt, though – and indicates that Starmer is corrupt, by extension.
EXCLUSIVE:
A deeply damning audio interview has emerged, from July 2021, in which acting @UKLabour General Secretary David Evans seems to admit he personally decided to strip Party members of their "rights", also indicating he specifically targeted those loyal to @jeremycorbyn. pic.twitter.com/HTqhA9TTST
By rights, it’s enough evidence to force him to resign, making him the shortest-serving Labour general secretary ever. But these corrupt types never do the decent thing.
But it is more evidence to support a mass exodus from the party of Keir Starmer’s friends.
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!
Rigging the vote? Keir Starmer (left) retains the services of his hitman David Evans (right) – but how many delegates to Labour conference were denied their vote by foul means in order to achieve the outcome? And will any of the votes in this year’s conference be honest?
David Evans has survived a vote on whether he will be allowed to continue as Labour Party general secretary.
Evans’s boss, Keir Starmer, had been pushing for the vote to be by ‘show of hands’ – an inaccurate method which right-wingers have allegedly used to rig vote results in the past.
But Evans himself announced that the vote would be by the more accurate ‘card’ system, in which every vote is counted.
It seems clear that Evans – and Starmer – had become confident of the result, and claims are circulating that they had eliminated enough anti-Evans delegates to make the vote go their way.
It was still a relatively close-run thing, with 59 per cent for Evans and 41 against. I wonder how many votes that translates into – and expect that we’ll all be surprised at how low the number are.
Stories of delegates’ party memberships being suspended before they could attend conference, being refused admittance for “security” reasons, or being denied the chance to vote when they did, are rife.
And who actually counted the votes?
But the result did not prevent humiliation for the hated general secretary. During his report, Evans told the assembled delegates, “Everybody remembers why they joined Labour,” and asked: “What was it for you?”
The response? Delegates broke into a chant of “Oh Jeremy Corbyn!”
The vote result does not bode well for the rest of the conference – or, indeed, for the future of the Labour Party under these two Tory cuckoos. Expect a mass exodus as Starmer and Evans steer a once-great party of the people into obscurity and ignominy.
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!
Fraud: Keir Starmer pretended he would be a decent Labour leader but all he has done is destroy the party from within. For the good of UK politics, he must be removed. Who will have the courage to demand it?
Labour party MPs and members: which of you will be brave enough to demand a vote of ‘no confidence’ in the leadership of Keir Starmer?
The Labour leader – who got himself elected under false pretences and ditched all his election pledges after his win – is working hard to undermine democracy in his own party: he’s having delegates to the conference suspended en masse to prevent them voting to remove his unelected right-wing general secretary, David Evans.
Left-wing NEC member Mish Rahman has raised the issue on Twitter:
I have recieved a number of emails from CLP delegates to conference who have recieved suspension of membership notices today.
Reasons for suspension will follow a week later – prob after conference.
They have incurred travel costs and accommodation to add to poor mental state
This is transparent, surely? Starmer is having delegates suspended purely so they won’t be able to vote to have Evans removed. They aren’t being given reasons for the suspension – and isn’t that itself a breach of party rules? – because there are no reasons.
That is not the act of the leader of a democratic socialist party. It is the blind savagery of a dictator.
The revelation follows the announcement that Starmer wants to roll back democracy in party leadership elections in order to save his own scrawny neck from legitimate challenges.
And we also heard recently that Starmer undermined Labour’s position on Brexit in order to engineer the 2019 election defeat that led to his election as leader in the first place.
Since then he has failed to oppose Boris Johnson’s incompetent Conservative government in any meaningful way, and seems more keen to support the Tory attacks on working and poor people, rather than do his job and defend them.
This is the background to the 2021 Labour conference, which starts on Saturday.
It is clear that Starmer’s behaviour is unacceptable on any level at all. He has disgraced the Labour Party and has brought its leadership into the worst kind of disrepute; he attacks his own party rather than the Tories.
Is there anybody within the Labour movement – who has not yet been expelled from the Labour Party itself – with the courage to stand up and demand his removal?
Anyone?
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 and Jeremy Corbyn: Starmer was already lined up to stab Mr Corbyn in the back, even in this image.
Labour leader Keir Starmer is in a pickle, and no mistake! His own words are making him as big a liar as Boris Johnson.
But while Johnson is attempting to break with his government’s recent past by cutting loose some of the most offensive people in his former Cabinet and promoting those he thinks play well with the public, Starmer remains mired in the results of his own actions.
The latest revelations about his shocking mistreatment of former party leader Jeremy Corbyn should sink him altogether. Perhaps it is only the support of a true-blue Tory media, that knows Starmer is the best thing that could have happened to Johnson, that keeps the public from turning on him.
The Labour leader currently stands accused of lying about the way Jeremy Corbyn was suspended from party members – unilaterally, by Starmer, in breach of an agreement he had made with the Equality and Human Rights Commission that very day.
He is also said to have broken an agreement he made to bring Corbyn back into the party on publication of a “clarification” statement by the former leader.
Former Unite General Secretary Len McCluskey explained in a Guardianarticle a few days ago [boldings mine]:
Labour briefed journalists that Starmer hadn’t personally suspended Corbyn; the party’s general secretary, David Evans, had. This mattered because one of the EHRC’s main lessons was that there must be no political interference in disciplinary cases – that such interference could be unlawful. Starmer was careful to tell the BBC Today programme the following morning: “Appropriate action was taken yesterday by the general secretary in suspending Jeremy Corbyn.”
But that’s not what he told me on the phone. His words were: “He put me in an impossible position and I had no choice.”
The EHRC had made it clear in its report that party representatives like Starmer should not involve themselves in disciplinary matters in any way, as it may appear that they were acting for political reasons. And isn’t this precisely what Starmer was doing, on the very day he had promised to abide by the organisation’s recommendations?
Corbyn had been clear that “anyone claiming there is no antisemitism in the Labour party is wrong” and that “one antisemite is one too many”, but he had also said that the scale of the problem had been “dramatically overstated” by opponents and the media. Corbyn sought to substantiate his claim in a broadcast interview, pointing to polling that suggested a vast gap between the perception of the extent of antisemitism in the party (the public thought complaints had been made against a third of members) and what the former leader said was “the reality” that 0.3% of members had actually been subject to disciplinary investigations.
As a victim of false allegations by the Labour Party who has had to do some research on this, I can confirm that Mr Corbyn’s figures were correct. My opinion is that this disparity had been stoked by Labour MPs who had falsely claimed that the party was “institutionally anti-Semitic” (this claim was firmly squashed by the EHRC) but Starmer has taken no action against the individuals concerned, who have clearly dragged Labour into disrepute. Does he have another agenda, perhaps?
Starmer, in his speech, had said that anyone saying antisemitism was “all exaggerated” was part of the problem. Corbyn, of course, hadn’t said it was all exaggerated, but Starmer now raised the bar. He told me on the phone that Corbyn had deliberately undermined him. “It’s as if he’s gone out of his way to contradict that line in my speech,” he said. “I’m beyond angry with Jeremy.”
Here’s a classic tactic of the false anti-Semitism campaign being used by Starmer himself. He said that Mr Corbyn had undermined his statement that anyone saying anti-Semitism in Labour was “all exaggerated” was part of the problem. But Mr Corbyn had not said that, and it is a lie to imply that he did. He had said the scale of the problem had been “dramatically overstated” by opponents and the media – and provided evidence to support the statement.
Starmer’s false claim was an attempt to make us believe a lie. How sad that nobody in the media at the time was even interested in questioning that claim, but took it at face value and published it to the masses!
The following afternoon, Jon Trickett MP and I went to parliament for a meeting with Starmer, his chief of staff Morgan McSweeney, and deputy leader Angela Rayner. Rayner began by requesting our discussion be confidential. Given what happened subsequently, I no longer feel bound by that.
Damned by her own words. Did Rayner know that Starmer and Evans were already planning to renege on any deal mapped out between their new leadership and representatives of Mr Corbyn?
Trickett and Starmer’s senior adviser Simon Fletcher had worked up a draft statement. I joined a conference call with McSweeney. I said: “As far as we are concerned it is our expectation that if Jeremy agrees to the statement then that is the end of the matter and the suspension will be lifted, after due process, and Jeremy will be back to normal.”
McSweeney’s response was: “Yes, that is our expectation, also.”
“And you speak on behalf of Keir?” I asked.
“Yes,” came his reply.
That was the deal for Corbyn’s reinstatement. A month and a half later, in response to questions from Sky News journalist Tom Rayner, Starmer’s spokesperson would say: “There was no deal on reinstatement, no.”
A bald lie, it seems.
When pressed on whether senior Labour staff had advance sight of Corbyn’s statement (which they had in fact co-written), the spokesperson would respond: “We are not going to comment on private conversations.”
That’s a classic line when people don’t want to admit a fact, of course. Again, damning.
And because Starmer, Rayner, Evans, McSweeney and whoever else was in negotiations on Labour’s side have (allegedly) reneged on their agreement, Mr McCluskey is submitting his observations on those negotiations to be used in Mr Corbyn’s court challenge against Labour’s (then-subsequent) withdrawal of the party whip from him:
— leftworks #WeAreCorbyn #IStandWithCraigMurray (@leftworks1) September 13, 2021
The formalities around Corbyn’s readmission were handled by a panel of Labour’s national executive committee, which met on 17 November. Corbyn published the agreed statement that morning. “To be clear, concerns about antisemitism are neither ‘exaggerated’ nor ‘overstated,’” read the key passage. “The point I wished to make was that the vast majority of Labour party members were and remain committed antiracists deeply opposed to antisemitism.”
I was – as were many others who had been wrongly accused, I’m sure – bitterly disappointed by this statement from Mr Corbyn, which denied what had happened to us. Was it really “neither ‘exaggerated’ nor ‘overstated'” when a Labour party officer leaked details of the party’s proceedings against me to The Sunday Times, which then published an entirely untrue claim that I was a Holocaust denier? (The newspaper published a lengthy correction a year later, after a lengthy investigation by newspaper watchdog IPSO.)
The vast majority of those who have been accused of anti-Semitism and expelled because of it are also committed anti-racists, falsely accused by the party they supported and trusted, with claims that certainly were ‘exaggerated’ and ‘overstated’. But I digress.
After Mr Corbyn made his statement and Starmer reinstated him into the Labour Party, the usual suspects piped up to cause trouble:
Margaret Hodge tweeted that it was “a broken outcome from a broken system”. The Jewish Labour Movement blamed a “factionally aligned political committee”.
Well, they would. Both have made it clear, over many years, that they have no interest in the well-being of the Labour Party but are they to undermine it, every chance they get. But Starmer never seems to understand that or act to counter it. Odd, that, don’t you think?
Instead…
it soon became clear he was going to crumble. It was reported he was given an ultimatum by Hodge: she would resign from the party if Corbyn remained a Labour MP.
Good riddance if she had! She should have been booted out years ago.
Starmer reneged on our deal. He withdrew the Labour whip from Corbyn, leaving him in the absurd situation of being an MP and a Labour member, but not a Labour MP. At no time in my discussions had this eventuality been mentioned. The objective of both sides had been to bring matters back to normal.
Corbyn was now told that if he wanted the whip restored he would have to make an apology – which prompted the question: if an apology was so important to the leadership, why didn’t they include one in the statement they co-wrote?
Shifting sands. The evidence suggests that Starmer wasn’t interested in justice; he just wanted an outcome that made him look good. And this shows his political naivete – he was never going to get it. In the anti-Semitism row, the Labour leadership is caught between members who know they are innocent and will fight for it, and activisits both inside and outside the party who know that merely making accusations will cause disruption and disarray in an organisation they hate.
I’m a trade unionist. The one thing you never do is renege on a deal you’ve negotiated… That was when I lost my personal relationship with Starmer. I could no longer trust him. He was not a man of his word.
If this was an isolated example perhaps it could be dismissed. But it increasingly looks like a pattern that extends to policy as well as politics.
Len McCluskey’s article is bad enough for Starmer.
But journalist Alex Nunns has gone further – simply by analysing the Labour leadership’s response and finding that it cannot deny any of the statements of fact.
Instead, Starmer’s office has tried to add new elements to the story, that support him. But in doing so, they undermine his claim that there had been no deal and support Mr McCluskey’s assertion that Starmer lied.
See for yourself:
For example look at this: direct quotes from Starmer, including the admission "He put me in an impossible position and I had no choice."
They don't deny he said it, they just say it doesn't mean what it means. "Labour sources denied those words were tantamount to an admission." pic.twitter.com/OrpjTxREBd
But this excuse is actually very revealing because if it was Starmer's expectation "based on precedent" that Jeremy's suspension would be lifted, then he knew immediately that Jeremy hadn't done anything to warrant it. So why the hell was he suspended?
Unwilling to refute quotes and facts, Starmer's office explains the "disparity" between the stories with a complete red herring: that Corbyn refused to delete his original Facebook statement. But that's got nothing to do with the deal that Len reveals. pic.twitter.com/z7CMyVzrtp
But if, on the other hand, Starmer's office is claiming that deleting the statement was part of the deal, then they're admitting there was a deal, despite denying there was a deal in the previous paragraph.
It's interesting that the demand from Starmer now appears to be that Jeremy must delete his Facebook statement. Previously it was that he must apologise. If the terms keep changing, how can Jeremy ever trust the other side? pic.twitter.com/n9mGMmtiMB
This is an important point: nobody can trust Starmer or the group within Labour that he leads. Those of us who have fought anti-Semitism accusations know that this is true; if you are accused, your innocence does not matter. It means powerful people in the party want you out and they believe they can smear you with impunity to do it.
Have they just got mixed up, or did they actually suspend Jeremy for one thing but tell him, and the NEC, it was for another thing?
Why is their line always changing?
It seems they're in a constant state of confusion about what they did and why.
The idea "Starmer was in the room at the time" it was decided to suspend a former Labour Leader, but didn't have any involvement, stretches credulity even without knowing he told Len he did it & boasted about it on the radio. What is it they say, "present but not involved"?
Crucially, it seems Starmer – the lawyer – has put himself in a position where he may have perjured himself in court proceedings:
delegation memo through NEC removing GS power to suspend, only GLU staff could do it. Starmer also no authority to suspend. As I see it the original Party suspension was ultra vires. 2. The deal. If there was a deal then why did Rachel Crasnow QC assert in Corbyn v Evans [2021] >
My guess is that, although he has painted himself into a corner, Starmer will try to worm his way out of it on a technicality.
But the British people don’t care about technicalities. They care about how their leaders present themselves.
And Starmer presents himself as a shifty, untrustworthy liar – and certainly not the kind of person we can support into leadership of the UK. If this is how he mistreats Labour members, how badly will he mistreat the rest of us if he gets the chance?
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!
Antidemocratic: Keir Starmer and the general secretary he appointed unilaterally – against Labour Party rules – don’t want party members to take any part in democratic decision-making. Delegates to the annual party conference should therefore use their democratic rights to vote Evans out of office – and Starmer as well, if possible.
Labour Party groups across the country are being urged to ensure that their conference delegates will not endorse Keir Starmer’s choice of David Evans as general secretary.
The Campaign for Labour Party Democracy (CLPD) supported its call simply by referring to Evans’s record in office, since Starmer appointed him to the job last year:
Since the NEC appointed Evans to act as General Secretary in May 2020, various measures have been introduced to curtail the rights of Labour Party members. Unprecedented restrictions have been placed on discussions of party business, with around 70 local party officers suspended from party membership for defending local party democracy.[See Note 1] This has made local party meetings into unwelcoming spaces for many party members and as a result our membership has already suffered a large decline.
None of this has been of electoral benefit, as is evident from: Labour’s significant decline in opinion polls since the summer of 2020; the predominately poor local election results in May; and the appalling loss of Labour support in the Hartlepool and the Chesham and Amersham by-elections.
And recent reports in the media suggest that the party is considering giving the General Secretary new powers to appoint people to make decisions on disciplinary charges – matters that are currently determined by people who are elected. Evidently this would not make the complaints process independent, but instead increase the General Secretary’s role in the prosecution and judgement of complaints – contrary to natural justice.
The risks for the party, if it continues to attack its own members and not put up any serious opposition to the Tories, is that we will be seen as divided, and voters, the majority of whom are being harmed by this government, will continue to look elsewhere when they want to vote for an alternative to Tory policies.
Regrettably, the party has been deterring, not attracting, electoral support. Right-wing factionalism does not deliver victories for Labour. It undermines the party’s functioning, both internally and also in elections.
It has been a mistake, with damaging consequences, that the party recently abandoned its democratic traditions. It is a mistake that Annual Conference can help to correct.
The long standing custom and practice was that party members discussed and adopted positions on matters across the full range of party business and policy. The culture, of encouraging internal debate, helped our party became one of the largest political parties in Europe. It also assisted the leadership, keeping it in touch with our members, who form the backbone of our local campaigns.
Our members are important to our success. The stifling of internal democracy is unfortunately damaging the party and this is benefiting our electoral opponents.
We need a General Secretary who will prioritise uniting the party around an alternative agenda to that of the Tories, to aid Labour in making a much needed electoral advance. It is an important post in the party, which should not be used as a platform for divisive attacks on party members.
Annual Conference needs to shift the party’s focus on to fighting the Tories. Delegates can best assist the party in achieving such a re-orientation by rejecting the NEC’s recommendation on the General Secretary.
Sadly, though, Evans’s own diktats mean party members can’t pass resolutions on the matter or even discuss it at their meetings because – and this is damning – “the current regime in the party is intolerant of democratic discussion on these matters“.
That’s right:
The acting General Secretary has placed significant restrictions on what local parties can discuss in meetings. Misleadingly presented as ‘guidance’, in reality dictates were issued, as became evident when many local party officers were suspended from party membership accused of failing to follow the so called ‘guidance’.
The dictates have effectively proscribed local party meetings from discussing the situation arsing from the political attacks on Labour’s former Leader Jeremy Corbyn. Party members have been barred from discussing their opposition to these attacks and from expressing solidarity with Jeremy.
In addition, severe restrictions have been placed on discussing other important political areas of party business, such as: whether the IHRA definition informs the most effective way to combat antisemitism; the decision of the Labour Party to make substantial payments to former members of party staff who appeared on a BBC Panorama programme; the EHRC’s report on the Labour Party and the party’s response to it; and ‘matters relating to the internal processes of the PLP’.
Presumably Evans is hoping that his order denying party members the opportunity to discuss his election means delegates will do as they are told and obediently nod him in – so he can cause even more damage.
To This Writer’s way of thinking, this should be cause for him to be automatically barred – not just from any position of authority in the Labour Party, but from membership of the organisation in any way at all.
Repressing other members simply isn’t appropriate behaviour for a Labour Party representative.
Also to This Writer’s way of thinking, this should be cause for a vote of “no confidence” in Keir Starmer’s leadership.
Starmer appointed Evans and we must conclude that he not only supported all the anti-democratic restrictions Evans has imposed – he demanded them.
That is not appropriate behaviour for a Labour Party leader so Starmer should get the boot too.
So, Labour delegates – are you up for it? Will you fight for your rights? Or do you actually deserve everything Starmer, Evans, and indeed Boris Johnson are shovelling at you?
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 (left) and his right-wing ACTING general secretary David Evans: they’re doormats to any right-wing organisation that wants to attack Labour, but have no problem attacking left-wing young people.
A new event has been added to the programme of The World Transformed – the left-wing political festival running alongside the Labour Party Conference this year.
Youth Rising for Palestine will take place on September 28, between 3-4.30pm, sponsored by Young Labour and the Palestine Solidarity Campaign, in what can only be a bitter humiliation for Keir Starmer and his unelected general secretary David Evans, who – it seems clear – tried to prevent the event from taking place at all.
The event’s blurb states: “May 2021 saw thousands of Palestinians killed by Israeli air strikes in the Gaza strip, in the wake of a wave of protests against violent evictions in Sheikh Jarrar and across occupied Palestine. In response to these attacks, millions mobilised across the world in solidarity with the people of Palestine, including the largest ever UK solidarity demonstration in London attended by overwhelmingly young people. But it is not enough to protest in the streets when thousands of Palestinian lives are lost. As the Israeli state ramps up its regime of apartheid and occupation, while the British political establishment seeks to suppress Palestinian voices and those acting in solidarity with them, how can we build on the explosion of youth-led organising we’ve seen this year to build a long-lasting and cross-generational UK solidarity movement?”
You can see how this would upset Starmer, who has aligned Labour firmly with apartheid Israel through his fawning subservience to the Board of Deputies of British Jews – which has itself just admitted its own strong ties to the Israeli Embassy; apparently it is not a UK organisation but an arm of the Israeli government that is being used to influence UK politics.*
I’m not the only person to see it this way. Consider:
What a genius move!
The event that David Evans and Keir Starmer tried to ban from Labour conference will now be held by The World Transformed!
— Emz The Socialist #OrdinaryLeft ✊❤️ (@EmzTheSocialist) September 1, 2021
How was Young Labour forced to take its event outside the Labour Conference? It’s quite complicated, but I’ll try to take you through it painlessly.
Events had been unfolding for many months but we only found out about them yesterday (August 31) after Young Labour co-chair Jess Barnard finally gave up trying to reason with Starmer (who never responded anyway) and Evans – who, it seems, was more interested in exercising powers he doesn’t actually have:
This is a disappointing and difficult thread to post, so buckle up!
A few months ago, myself and @lara_eleanor met with David Evans once we were told the party would not be holding a young labour conference this year, despite it being a rulebook requirement.
Right – so Young Labour were told they would not be allowed to hold their annual event this year, even though the Labour Party is required by its own rules to host it. Already, Evans was breaking party rules.
If he had provided a reason – even one as flimsy as Covid-19 (it wouldn’t work because then he wouldn’t be holding a full conference) – it wouldn’t have been as bad, but he simply didn’t bother.
Its worth noting here that during all this we have had nothing from Keir Starmer or the leaders office since being elected almost a year ago. No acknowledgement we exist, no reply to emails, nothing.
Okay, so Evans at least promised to provide more resources for a Young Labour presence in the main event. Did he?
No:
So we are now three weeks to conference with the party giving us no information, and just today they have said there is no capacity for due diligence checks until 20th september – these are the necessary checks for every speaker at conference potentially ruling out YL day.
You read that right. YL provided all its required information months ago and was ignored until yesterday – August 31 – when Ms Barnard was given the excuse that the party had “no capacity for due diligence checks” until September 20.
To me, it looks like Evans (and Starmer?) found a reason to want YL’s events cancelled – quietly and without any nasty publicity. Why would they want that? Read on…
Myself and a couple of committee members will now be working around the clock to pull together events with or without the help of the leadership. Young members have bought tickets, paid for travel and accommodation to be here and were promised a YL day by the national party.
Is the picture clearer now? YL wanted to host an event with the Palestine Solidarity Campaign, and Evans (and Starmer?) wanted to put a stop to it. But they didn’t want to be seen to be stopping that particular event, so they created an excuse about “due diligence” checks.*
Ms Barnard, at least, is still willing to work with the Labour leadership…
I felt it was important to set the record straight that we as a committee are doing everything within our power and capacity to deliver for all young members and will make sure any young member who bought tickets will not be let down. In solidarity!
One reason for this feeling is the arrival of a journalist named Oliver Kamm (I had never heard of him either). After Ms Barnard tweeted her thread, he responded with the comment below – claiming that Young Labour is anti-Semitic and wants to see a second Holocaust.
There is, to This Writer’s knowledge, absolutely no evidence to support such a wild claim, so Ms Barnard’s response is entirely understandable.
And take a look at Alex Tiffin’s comment.
Now would be the time you'd expect @Keir_Starmer and @AngelaRayner to come to the aid of their Young Elected Representatives. It is after all their job to support & mentor them
It's not just defamatory for @YoungLabourUK either, but the wider @UKLabour Party in general.
Where are Starmer and Rayner (and, for that matter, Evans)? Nowhere to be seen. Now, why on Earth would they not want to defend their elected Labour Party representative? And isn’t it a dereliction of duty that they have said nothing about this?
Fortunately a few other people have chimed in to have their informed say. Personally, I have no knowledge of this Kamm person so must rely on their information:
First, we had Simon Heffer claiming that Corbyn wanted to 'reopen Auschwitz', and now we have Oliver Kamm saying that Young Labour wants 'a second Holocaust'.
They all know this stuff is unhinged nonsense, but this is what the fake 'antisemitism crisis' has always been: a scam. https://t.co/2DaZ9CZtOG
Oliver Kamm, currently inventing obscene claims with which to brand Young Labour racist, previously wrote that Islamophobia is a "scam," a "fabricated and question-begging linguistic manoeuvre."https://t.co/Wx8FsMW9s1pic.twitter.com/oBeZexnOug
Oliver Kamm used to post in a Chomsky newsgroup in the late 90s/00s. David Graeber was active there at the time and remembered him when I reached out to him a couple of years ago. Kamm had thousands of posts, many originating from his then-employer Commerzbank's IP address. pic.twitter.com/kdhj9oOalu
10 months ago, Keir Starmer removed the whip from Jeremy Corbyn for saying Labour's "antisemitism crisis" had been exaggerated and weaponised, thereby stoking up unjustified fear among British Jews.
In other news, here's Oliver Kamm claiming Young Labour want a second Holocaust. pic.twitter.com/nKBzFtrTjT
— Frank Owen's Legendary Paintbrush 🟨🟥🥀🇵🇸 (@WarmongerHodges) September 1, 2021
Not forgetting that Oliver Kamm's idea of freedom of speech is to threaten and bully younger journalists, such as @OwenJones84, and write to their employers in an apparent attempt to intimidate them. https://t.co/3KPJq0JdVv
— leftworks #WeAreCorbyn #IStandWithCraigMurray (@leftworks1) August 31, 2021
Fortunately, given all of the above, it seems certain that the following tweet will prove inaccurate:
Oliver Kamm seriously tweeted that Young Labour supports a second Holocaust and he can just do that and nothing will happen. Absolutely wild.
So that is the reason Young Labour will be co-sponsoring an event at so-called “Trots’ Jamboree” The World Transformed – alongside the PSC. I wonder if Jeremy Corbyn will attend.
This Writer has no doubt that it will be a much more worthwhile use of your time than whatever vapid puff of hot air will be put up by Starmer’s mob at that time. When’s his leader speech?
Meanwhile, I can only agree with the following two tweets…
The more Keir Starmer targets, silences and purges Palestinian rights campaigners to placate the Jewish Labour Movement [sic] and the Board of Deputies, the more obvious it becomes that Labour's "antisemitism crisis" was all about protecting the fascist government of Israel.
— Frank Owen's Legendary Paintbrush 🟨🟥🥀🇵🇸 (@WarmongerHodges) August 31, 2021
By effectively banning Young Labour from this year's Labour Party conference, Keir Starmer has told everyone who got interested in politics because of Jeremy Corbyn to f*ck off.
— Frank Owen's Legendary Paintbrush 🟨🟥🥀🇵🇸 (@WarmongerHodges) August 31, 2021
… and endorse James Foster’s words of encouragement to Young Labour members who will be attending the conference:
I hope any @YoungLabourUK members, eligible to vote, vote AGAINST the appointment of David Evans at @UKLabour Conference.
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.
