Jared O’Mara (centre): he was allegedly selected by right-wing Labour factionalists who didn’t check his credentials properly.
The former MP who replaced Nick Clegg as MP for Sheffield Hallam has been in the news again after being jailed for faking invoices to Parliament to fund a cocaine habit.
But did you know that Jared O’Mara may have only become a candidate because a right-wing Labour general secretary didn’t bother to check up on him before he was selected to run for the seat?
The show’s presenter, Crispin Flintoff provided a preview of the situation on Facebook:
“Labour’s General Secretary in 2017, Iain McNicol, was responsible for the selection of Jared O’Mara. He decided that candidates shouldn’t be scrutinised in ‘unwinnable’ seats and Jared was selected because the Blairite-dominated panel thought O’Mara wasn’t a Jeremy Corbyn supporter.
“Such was their factionalism that when Jared declared himself a Jeremy Corbyn supporter, they withdrew funds for his campaign. But he still won.
“I’ve got the inside story of this on Sunday morning’s ‘Not the Andrew Marr Show’. It includes insights from Martin Mayer (formerly on the NEC), Tina Werkmann and Lee Rock (both of Sheffield Hallam Labour Party at the time) and Tosh McDonald (former Aslef official who showed Jared support).
“I hope that people can watch this and see that Streeting is ridiculously factional and economical with the truth (just as he is with the NHS).”
It seems this is another situation in which right-wing Labour sabotaged its own party – first by assuming Sheffield Hallam couldn’t be won and allow an inappropriate candidate to stand there, and then by disowning him and stressing his association with Jeremy Corbyn to bring the then-Labour leader into disrepute.
And these people are now in charge of Labour once again.
But I don’t have all the information – I have to wait until Sunday, just the same as you.
Let’s see how the facts stack up.
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!
Jeremy Corbyn is a friend to Jewish people but right-wingers who publish fake news traduced him – made him look like the exact opposite. Sadly, too few readers fact-checked the false claims and his reputation suffered huge damage.
One would have thought an ethnic group that was once brutally attacked by propagandists would be immune to their influence; apparently not.
Right-wing newspapers intended for a UK Jewish readership are sporting headlines claiming that Jews in this country now feel safer, and that they have a future here, knowing that Jeremy Corbyn will not be prime minister.
What they aren’t saying is that this is because they have stopped filling their pages with anti-Corbyn propaganda – falsehoods that were designed to provoke fear in their fellow Jews.
Fake news.
And they’re still pushing it – it’s no coincidence that these headlines are appearing right after we learned Corbyn is launching a court action against the Labour Party over his suspension.
Those of us who know the facts of this matter have given them short shrift:
Of course, many of my fellow Jews *feel safer*
They are no longer subject to the vile anti-Corbyn propaganda of the Jewish Chronicle and most of the mainstream media including the BBC
While their newspapers threatened them with institutional anti-Semitism on a national level, if Jeremy Corbyn had actually become prime minister he would have removed prescription charges from the English NHS.
If you call that cruelty, there’s something wrong with you.
And if you support, read and believe the periodicals that put out this propaganda, you’re not only harming yourself but helping to harm those around 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!
Tebbit’s law: the law of the far-right thug, apparently.
What a confession.
Norman Tebbit, writing in the Daily Telegraph has admitted that he thinks Adolf Hitler’s Nazi government of Germany in the 1930s and 40s was left-wing – because it had the word “socialist” in its title.
It’s an old, and easily-defeated, false argument but let’s all take a moment to enjoy the fact that the skeletal old thug has admitted that his own politics are more extreme even than Hitler’s. We all suspected; now we know.
He wrote: “Churchill was the great wartime leader in the fight to save this country and liberate our friends on the continent from the curse of Hitler’s extreme Left, anti-Semitic, German National Socialist Workers’ Party regime.”
“Extreme Left”? “Extreme Left“?
Reality check, please!
To Norman Tebbit and any so called 'conservative' wanting to propagate the lie that Nazis were socialists, you might want to look here (and countless other places) https://t.co/jugjU2Brk8. If you're too lazy to read it, I'll summarise: 'Nazism was/is extreme right wing fascism'
— Philippe Philoppe (@PhilipePhiloppe) June 24, 2020
There y’go. And if Nazism was “extreme right-wing fascism” but Norman Tebbit considers it to be of the “extreme Left”, then clearly Mr Tebbit is so right-wing he should be quarantined to prevent his own fascism from infecting anybody nearby – and the Torygraph sanctioned for publishing his vile opinions.
The article has produced some sharp responses, which are worth celebrating, though:
When you’re so far right you see Hiltler as a leftie.
I see that Norman Tebbit is spouting the old lie that "The Nazis were called the National Socialist Party, they had Socialist in the name, so therefore the Nazis were Socialist".
I wonder if he's ever eaten Spotted Dick?
— Harry ⚫ "Fallout 76 Collectron" Payne (@murphyslawyer) June 24, 2020
Think we have a joint winner in the great right-wing revisionist competition. Cycling and cricket racist Norman Tebbit and the Telegraph for printing his piece in which he first of all describes Hitler's Nazis as "extreme left"…and then belittles the death of George Floyd… pic.twitter.com/gmbrzckpJH
If you’re not aware of this, the label “cricket racist” arises from his infamous 1990 ‘cricket test’ in which black Britons were invited to pick a side to support when England played the West Indies. The implication was that they were more likely to support the foreign team than their own national side. Some have tried to claim that the comment was not racist but it is very similar to an anti-Semitic trope which suggests that all Jews are more loyal to Israel than to the UK. If the latter is anti-Semitic (and This Writer would certainly say it is, despite a pathetic attempt by the Labour Party to suggest otherwise with an extremely selective quotation) then the former is certainly racist.
Norman Tebbit telling us what most decent people had already suspected. On the political scale, Tories are to the right of nazis pic.twitter.com/cpTXhkFUeJ
Rightwingers are always on the wrong side of history yet they have a habit of rewriting history to cover up that fact. Norman Tebbit being the latest example as he declares Hitler was a Leftie. Let's not forget it was also the tories who conceived the idea of the NHS <rolls eyes>
— Wayne Smith Esq. #FBPE (@waynesmith1971) June 24, 2020
For the surprising number of people who seem to think that the Telegraph / Norman Tebbit assertion that the Nazi party were extreme left wing was correct. pic.twitter.com/nCpl6g4ITQ
Okay, here’s Sean Connery, from Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade:
“Goose-stepping morons like [Tebbit] should try reading books instead of burning them!”
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!
Here’s another tweet by ‘Mad Nad’ Nadine Dorries – which she could now more accurately use to describe herself.
Health minister Nadine Dorries, former Tory vice-chair Maria Caulfield and Lucy Allan have made an abortive attempt to discredit Labour leader Keir Starmer by sharing a misleading video created by far-right activists.
They quote-tweeted a video post that claimed to show Starmer explaining “why he didn’t prosecute grooming gangs”, when in fact he was explaining why he implemented reforms as the Director of Public Prosecutions.
A Labour source said: “This is a doctored video tweeted by far-right social media account. As a government minister, we hope Nadine Dorries acknowledges this and takes it down.”
Dorries and Allan have now deleted their posts, while Caulfield has deleted her Twitter account.
But the real question is how the three Tory MPs obtained the video in the first place: the original Twitter user – whose account is now deleted – has previously shared racist content.
The trio’s decision to post this anti-Starmer propaganda has been questioned by many on the social media, who point to the fact that the new Labour leader had just exposed false claims about Covid-19-related deaths in care homes by Boris Johnson:
Tory MPs Nadine Dorries, Maria Caulfield (deleted account) and Lucy Allan, have been exposed for retweeting far-right hate accounts showing doctored footage of Sir Keir Starmer.
This bizarre attack won’t have anything to do with Starmer obliterating the PM yesterday, obviously.
(I think he means they’ll be asking anybody who retweeted their falsehood to retweet their apology.)
Nadine Dorries just proved that the Tory party is indeed still the nasty party. It doesn’t matter what you think of @Keir_Starmer, the video was wrongfully edited and shared to twist the truth. Revealing.
Perhaps more revealing is the fact that any reference to the prosecution of child grooming allegations in connection with Boris Johnson brings us back to his own – genuine – remarks, that the investigation into historical allegations of child abuse is “spaffing money up the wall” (an extremely unwise comment when one considers the meaning of the word “spaffing”):
Slide 1: Government minister Nadine Dorries shares doctored video that spreads lies about Keir Starmer (now deleted)
Slide 2: Boris Johnson: Historical Child Abuse Investigation Is "Spaffing Money Up The Wall" pic.twitter.com/QoJTmHzfgk
So, while we wait for Mad Nad and Loathsome Lucy to delete their accounts, perhaps BoJob would like to explain why he wanted to stop investigations into child sexual abuse?
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: He is systematically betraying the Labour voters who installed him as leader – and stabbing rented housing tenants in the back.
If the secret to great comedy is timing, then Keir Starmer must be one of the biggest clowns in the United Kingdom.
And the joke is on the party members who supported him.
Having won the leadership of the Labour Party on a “continuity” platform that promised to continue the work of former leader Jeremy Corbyn in restoring the organisation to its historic values, Mr Starmer has now decided to reject those policies and claim that Mr Corbyn’s leadership is the reason Labour lost dozens of northern English constituencies that voted to leave the European Union.
I mention the EU referendum because it was previously accepted that it was Mr Starmer’s policy on Brexit that confused voters and sent them to the Tories, whose own policy risks a catastrophic “no deal” Brexit but was at least clearer than Starmer’s.
It is perfectly understandable that the new Labour leader would want to shift the blame for himself – albeit transparent; obviously he doesn’t want his leadership to start in acknowledgement that the policy he forced onto Labour’s last election manifesto kept the party out of government. It makes him look a fool.
And attacking Corbyn’s leadership also gives Starmer – now known to be a ‘Red Tory’; a supporter of policies that put him at the far right of the Labour Party with the so-called Blairites – an opportunity to ditch all of Mr Corbyn’s progressive policies in favour of a return to the neoliberal consensus that led to the financial crisis of 2007/8.
So he gave an interview in the Financial Times saying Mr Corbyn’s leadership was the top topic of conversation, without acknowledging that residents of the 40 constituencies he visited (and he doesn’t mention how many were among those that abandoned Labour) might find it uncomfortable telling the architect of Labour’s disastrous Brexit policy that he was a dunce.
More believable is his assertion that people believed Labour had overloaded its manifesto with promises to re-balance power within the UK, nationalising several utilities, providing £300 billion of shares to workers and promising an extra £83 billion in tax and spending – but in fact, Labour’s policies were fully-costed and the most controversy arising from its spending policies was a plan to compensate the so-called WASPI women for pension losses triggered because the Tories had raised the state pension age without providing adequate opportunity for those affected to make plans.
Still, when you’re using a position of power to betray everyone who put you there, any excuse will do – and we’re starting to see the results of Starmer’s rightward lurch now.
He has appointed right-winger Bridget Phillipson as Shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury, who was previously known for attacking Labour’s 2017 election manifesto for offering too much to voters. The offer was hugely successful and reduced the Tory majority of the previous two years to a hung Parliament.
According to a leaked letter from Phillipson to other shadow cabinet members, all policies that involve spending will now require the approval of both Starmer and the shadow Treasury team before they are even put into the planning stages.
Clearly, Starmer wants an “out-Tory the Tories” spending policy of the kind that led to then-Shadow Work and Pensions Secretary Rachel Reeves promising to be “tougher than the Tories” on benefits, in just one particularly out-of-touch policy from the Miliband era.
The first sign of right-wing betrayal arrived over the weekend, with Starmer’s decision to betray tenants of rented properties:
Starmer’s policy comes in response to a current Tory promise to help tenants and may be summed up as follows:
Extend the three-month ban on evictions to nine months; introduce no-fault eviction ban now; protect tenants from being made bankrupt by their landlords for non-payment of rent; grant renters at least two years to pay back any arrears accrued during this period; speed up and improve the provision of Universal Credit and consider a temporary increase to the Local Housing Allowance to help prevent risk of homelessness.
Joe Halewood, in his excellent SpeyeJoe blog, shreds just two of these proposals. He states:
In the simplest terms the rented properties that are ordinarily available will now NOT be available and we have a chronic shortage of rented housing supply being the direct and inevitable consequence of any ban period. We also see a huge increase in demand for rented properties… The ban creates a massively adverse systemic problem for all forms of rented housing on the day a ban ends and the longer the ban the greater the s**t [that] hits the fan.
For example:
Let’s assume the current 3-month ban is not extended for the purpose of illustration as to what it will mean from 26 June 2020 and the day after the ban ends.
I begin with domestic violence and abuse (DVA) and the 3-month ban on housing moves also means that:
Those who have already fled DVA to a refuge have been unable to move out of refuges as there is no supply;
Those who wanted to flee DVA in the 3-month period have not been able to flee as refuges are full and nobody is allowing sofa surfing in the COVID19 period which is also government guidance;
The 3-month ban period that coincides with lockdown has created even more DVA cases than in any ordinary 3-month period; and
Government has announced that all DVA cases will be treated as priority need for homeless persons which infers a safe and settled rehousing will be found and will lead to more DVA cases coming forward in that expectation
26 June will see a huge increase in DVA cases requiring rehousing either in a refuge or directly in safe and settled accommodation which is the phrase government use to sell this priority need change. There will be no refuge provision available nor will there be any form of accommodation never mind safe and settled other than temporary and often dingy unsuitable B&B type provision. DVA survivors will also have to stay longer in this dingy unsuitable B&B type provision as the 3-month eviction ban has massively reduced supply of all forms of accommodation.
Those fleeing the horrors of domestic violence and abuse will be warehoused more and for longer than they were prior to the 3-month eviction ban and it will take years, literally, for the already appalling position we had for DVA immediately prior to the 3-month ban.
On the proposed no-fault eviction ban, he states:
The number of single person homeless in England is not less than 140,000 each year yet just 13,000 are rehoused by social landlords to escape homelessness. 130,000 and 90%+ single homeless persons are rehoused by private landlords and who operate Assured Shorthold Tenancies that can be ended by the so-called no fault eviction (NFE) which is the landlord not needing to give a reason to end the tenancy.
The private landlord rehouses the perceived high risk single homeless tenant because if the tenant is a problem they can get rid easily and without the need for a reason. Yet take that ease of NFE away and you have the same high risk homeless tenant whom the private landlord is unable to get rid of easily. Such a tenant becomes an unacceptable too high a risk tenant so private landlords as an obvious and correct business decision do not rehouse the single homeless person.
Crunch the numbers. IF the private landlord takes just 10% flight from the much higher risk single homeless tenant they rehouse 13,000 fewer per year. These 13,000 will need to be rehoused by the social landlord and see their numbers have to go from 13,000 to 26,000 per year. To wit, just 10% PRS flight means SRS landlords have to DOUBLE the number of properties they now give to single homeless persons.
It’s an unsustainable position.
Joe goes on to say that the social media are already full of how right-wing Starmer’s new policy is, and that it “ignores context, fact and any notion of commonsense or efficacy”.
Let’s take a look:
Terrible policy.
63% of private tenants have no savings.
In London, single tenants are spending up to 85% of their monthly salaries on rent.
If their income collapses, a two year rent deferral means pushing them into debt – and stops them spending, which is bad for the economy https://t.co/ebL3ZsbbKQ
I am surprised at the people who are surprised that New-New Labour won't support tenants. Don't you remember the expenses scandal? Do you really think it was only Tory MPs who were implicated? Did you forget a Labour MP going to prison? Patience, comrades. Our time will come. 🌹
— CrémantCommunarde#ActivistLawyer ⚖️ 😷 ✋ (@0Calamity) May 9, 2020
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!
For the many: it seems Labour’s apparent failure to live up to its slogan could do more damage to the party than a few defamation/data protection claims.
How surprising to see The Guardian reporting on a financial threat to Labour after a report was leaked alleging misconduct by party officers that meant the party lost the 2017 general election!
Instead of stating that rank-and-file party members were getting together to demand their subscriptions – that they could argue were taken under false pretences as party officers were working against winning the election…
I found that the people accused of the misconduct are planning to sue the party for defamation and data protection offences.
On one hand I am encouraged by this. I have taken Labour to court over data protection offences after (false) information about me was leaked to the national press by a party officer.
The fact that others are considering the same suggests that I was well within my rights to accuse the party (because, as data controller, it has ultimate responsibility for leaks).
On the other, it is doubtful that any defamation claims should be allowed to go anywhere – at least, not yet.
The information about party members in the report is taken from emails and WhatsApp messages that were placed in the hands of party investigators legitimately and it would be premature for anybody to launch lawsuits on the basis of it, until evidence is brought forward that disproves it.
Also, consider the words of the lawyer concerned, Mark Lewis. He said: “For four years, people in Labour have said there is no antisemitism in the party, it’s just a smear. Now they say that of course there was antisemitism, ‘but it just wasn’t us’. They have not noticed the absurdity of their change of position.”
Nobody in Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour leadership said there was no anti-Semitism in the party. I haven’t said that. None of the other higher-profile members who were accused has made that suggestion (to my knowledge).
So who, exactly made that claim? I notice that Mr Lewis did not elaborate on its origin and that is another reason to doubt the usefulness of these threatened lawsuits.
Are they just an attempt to bully the current Labour leadership? Why would anybody expect that to work?
On the other hand, going back to the wider party membership, it seems far more likely that action brought by rank-and-file members would succeed in restoring their subscription money to them.
If enough people do this, then it could put Labour in serious financial difficulty.
And it is entirely possible that the party would deserve to be put in that predicament – if the allegations in the report turn out to be accurate.
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: is he happy to be stained by the corruption alleged against Labour officers over the last few years?
We’ve all heard the claims from the leaked Labour report into factionalism in the party that interfered with anti-Semitism investigations – it also stopped the party winning the 2017 election.
Nothing was done about the right-wing faction that was said to be sabotaging Labour’s election hopes.
While some of the faces changed, we may take it as read that the same attitudes prevailed in Labour HQ – even after last year’s Panorama documentary, Is Labour Antisemitic?, revealed the rot at the heart of the party (although the perpetrators were claiming to be the good guys).
So this should come as no surprise:
Labour officials ran a secret operation to deceive Jeremy Corbyn at last year’s general election, micro-targeting Facebook adverts at the leader and his closest aides to convince them the party was running the campaign they demanded.
Campaign chiefs at Labour HQ hoodwinked their own leader because they disapproved of some of Corbyn’s left-wing messages.
They convinced him they were following his campaign plans by spending just £5,000 on adverts solely designed to be seen by Corbyn, his aides and their favourite journalists, while pouring far more money into adverts with a different message for ordinary voters.
What was the message – “don’t vote Labour”?
The more were learn about the rot that has been growing in the heart of Labour since before the days of Tony Blair (This Writer personally believes it started to set in during the leadership of Neil Kinnock), the worse it seems.
Jeremy Corbyn was certainly at fault for failing to take action, although he may have felt constrained by the spin that may have been put on it – by, for example, the organisations who lobbied so strongly about alleged anti-Semitism.
Keir Starmer is under no such constraints, although he will be if he fails to take swift and decisive action (something he has hitherto been reluctant to attempt).
It seems to This Writer that the Americans have the right idea after all.
When they change government from Democrat to Republican, or vice versa, the incoming administration changes everybody – all of the civil servants – to ensure that the workers enacting their policies are fully supportive of them.
I had always considered it somewhat extreme.
But recent revelations suggest that this is exactly what should happen in the Labour Party – certainly if a left-wing leader ever gains ascendance there again.
And Starmer will have to do the same, sooner or later.
Whether deservedly or not, the party’s reputation is now one of corruption.
If the new leader doesn’t make a show of purging it, then he will be stained by 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!
Keir Starmer: he’s extremely relaxed about alleged corruption and racism among his party officers.
Many Labour members are named as having participated in the misdeeds chronicled by the leaked Labour report on the party’s response to anti-Semitism allegations. According to the rules, all of their party memberships should have been suspended immediately. Why has this not happened?
Keir Starmer said he was launching an investigation immediately (this was not true because I hear the National Executive Committee is meeting on Thursday to discuss that investigation’s terms of reference; it hasn’t started yet).
Anyone who has ever had their membership suspended will know that this happens before an investigation begins.
Don’t forget that while the report states none of the officers concerned were found to have anti-Semitic attitudes, the allegation that they delayed investigations into anti-Semitism (to make Jeremy Corbyn look bad) means they are believed to have actively tried to support the presence of anti-Semitism in the Labour Party. If rank-and-file members had been accused of this, their memberships would have been suspended.
So, if all Labour Party members are supposed to be equal, why are these alleged racists and election-fixers getting preferential treatment?
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!
Why are elements in the Labour Party, along with unions like the GMB and Unison, trying to protect people in their ranks who have been shown committing vile acts of racism?
Not only is this behaviour highlighted in the leaked Labour report on how factions in the party’s staff dragged their heels over complaints of anti-Semitism in order to discredit the leadership of Jeremy Corbyn…
… but it seems miscreants in the party are now trying to protect the apparent racists – and attacking right-thinking people.
So ITV News is reporting that Labour staff members tried to stop the party’s Unite branch from sending letters of solidarity to Diane Abbott, Dawn Butler and Clive Lewis – the MPs named in the report as victims of racism and racial profiling.
A meeting by videoconference supported a motion that said the report had “highlighted damning examples of casual workplace racism at the most senior levels of the party” and “illustrates how the racism faced by Black, Asian and minority ethnic members were ignored.” It also called for letters of solidarity to be sent.
The report continues:
During the meeting, some Labour Party staffers objected to this and an amendment was tabled to stop the letters of solidarity being sent out.
One Labour staffer, who is mentioned in the report in reference to these allegations, argued against it happening and said that it served as “an implication of guilt”.
Who are these people? What are their names? Why are they supporting racist abuse? When will they be suspended while their own conduct is investigated?
Perhaps more shocking is the motion put before the GMB’s Labour staff branch that general secretary Jennie Formby should “apologise personally” to staff named in the report (apologies for the source of this; we know Pogrund has published false information about This Writer but in this case it seems his facts are sound):
NEW: GMB Labour staff branch will debate a motion today demanding that Jennie Formby "apologise personally' to staff named in the leaked report pic.twitter.com/sDZETio7Oj
Why should Jennie Formby apologise to these apparent racists?
Or perhaps we’re seeing elements in Labour who believe the named people should be given the benefit of the doubt.
If so, are these the same people who were happy to demand the persecution and expulsion of left-wing party members, based only on inaccurate press reports (such as Pogrund’s, about me)?
Such people are obviously not acting in good faith and their memberships of their various organisations should have been suspended already.
Also ripe for suspension is Dave Prentis, right-wing general secretary of UNISON, who has said the jobs of two of the principle actors named in the Labour report are safe – in spite of outrage among the union’s members and executive committee.
According to Skwawkbox, “On Tuesday, hundreds of Unison members – including more than twenty elected members of the union’s National Executive Committee – demanded action from general secretary Dave Prentis after two senior Unison officials were accused in the leaked Labour report that detailed sabotage of Labour’s disciplinary processes and electoral effects.
“In an open letter, the members demanded a full investigation and firm action against any staff found to have undermined Labour as described in the report, “to retain the confidence of our members, who look to the Labour Party to deliver the political change they need“.
“According to Murdoch hack Gabriel Pogrund [him again], seemingly at a loose end now that Jeremy Corbyn is no longer leader of the Labour Party, Prentis has told the pair not to worry about their positions because he will back them.”
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: he had the Labour report on right-wing factionalism interfering with the party’s response to anti-Semitism – for more than a week – and did nothing about it. He doesn’t need to hear other people’s answers – he needs to provide them himself.
The report that shows how a right-wing faction among the Labour Party’s staff actively sabotaged the party’s electoral chances, partially by interfering in investigations into alleged anti-Semitism, was commissioned by the party’s general secretary, Jennie Formby, it seems.
This is entirely proper.
It was intended to be an annex to Labour’s submission to the Equalities and Human Rights Commission, which is investigating claims that there is “institutional anti-Semitism” in the party.
Keir Starmer, as new leader, was handed the report soon after he took on the role on April 4, along with a recommendation from the party’s lawyers that it should not be sent to the EHRC. It seems we don’t know the reasons for this recommendation.
Starmer sat on the report. He didn’t send it back with a call for changes that would make it suitable for submission; he didn’t authorise its submission; and he didn’t cancel it either.
Perhaps that is the reason whoever it was leaked it.
Here’s the juice from ITV News:
Formby, a close ally of Corbyn, worked on the report which was intended to serve as an annex to the full submission that is being sent to the EHRC.
It also involved a handful of others who worked in Labour's Governance and Legal Unit – most of whom are also Corbyn allies.
Senior figures within the party like Seamus Milne and Karie Murphy provided information, evidence and emails that related to the allegations of antisemitism to aid research for the EHRC submission, but did not help to write this report – the process was managed by Formby.
In one case a senior Labour staffer had sent themselves their entire WhatsApp conversation history by email – so the researchers were able to access group chats of colleagues at Labour HQ discussing their opinions about Corbyn and Labour’s performance at the 2017 general election
Some of the conversations in the WhatsApp groups were “abusive and inappropriate language about the leader, MPs, Labour members and about other staff”, the report claims.
The real question, as it occurs to This Writer, is why Starmer sat on the report for so long.
Is it because, as Mr Khan describes it, the report’s researchers “found more than they bargained for” among the hundreds of thousands of emails and the WhatsApp chats to which they were granted access?
Was he trying to cover up the genuine institutionalised racism and other misbehaviour that the report describes?
If so, he doesn’t need an independent inquiry.
He should just confess what he did.
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.
