“We are many, they are few”: they being, it seems, the pro-Starmer faction of the wider Labour Party membership. And the longer Jeremy Corbyn remains suspended as a party member, the fewer they will become.
Days after Keir Starmer’s Labour leadership repeated a demand for rank-and-file Labour members not to discuss Jeremy Corbyn’s suspension or demand its reversal, CLPs are using his own hypocrisy to attack him.
This Site pointed out the double-standard in an article two days ago.
The day after it appeared, Bristol West CLP supported a motion that highlighted the hypocritical demand. It said, in part:
A number of public figures, including but not limited to the leader of the party, the deputy leader of the party, and the Socialist Campaign Group have issued public statements on the suspension, and that the SCG has called for re-instatement, yet the general secretary has nevertheless ordered that CLPs cannot do the same.
The CLP, political home of shadow housing secretary Thangam Debbonaire, added:
This CLP resolves:
To condemn Jeremy Corbyn’s suspension and demand his reinstatement to the party.
To oppose any and all politically motivated disciplinary actions against the left by the leadership.
According to Skwawbox, right-wingers in the Bristol West Labour Party tried to pack the meeting in order to defeat the motion – or at least amend it – in what can clearly be interpreted as an attack on democracy by supporters of Keir Starmer.
But Starmer – and his people – need to answer for their actions.
‘Well, he was also a great doctor’: after Matt Hancock defended the possible appointment of ‘homophobic misogynist’ Tony Abbott to the Board of Trade, Twitter wits have speculated on other people he might defend, including mass-murderer Harold Shipman.
Health Secretary Matt Hancock didn’t do very well when he was asked to defend “homophobic misogynist” Tony Abbott in a TV interview.
The former Australiam prime minister is reportedly being lined up to be a joint president of the UK’s relaunched Board of Trade.
Hancock was challenged on this by Kay Burley on Sky News. The video clip shows the health secretary squirming as he realises he has dug yet another hole for the government:
Here’s how Sky reported it on the channel’s website:
Asked about Mr Abbott’s possible appointment, Mr Hancock told the Kay Burley programme: “As far as I understand it, the proposal is that Mr Abbott supports the UK on trade policy, which is an area in which he has got a huge area of expertise.
“I bow to nobody in my support for everybody to love who they love, whoever that is.
“But we need to have the best experts in the world working in their field and as the former prime minister of Australia, he has a huge amount of experience.”
Asked whether he feels that way even if Mr Abbott is, in Burley’s words, a “homophobic misogynist”, the health secretary said: “I don’t think that’s true.”
Pressed again about the former leader’s views, Mr Hancock replied: “Well, he’s also an expert in trade.”
“Well, he’s also an expert in trade.”
That’s the line that did all the damage.
It has created a wave of mocking “Well, he’s also…” tweets on the social media, suggesting other people who were “also” experts in their field that Mr Hancock might welcome to government roles:
Matt Hancock's dream team of experts:
Tony Abbott – trade Harold Shipman – health Peter Sutcliffe – lorry driving Jimmy Saville – charity Rolf Harris – painting Fred West – patios
As I write this, BBC News has just challenged Tory Tom Tudendhat on the same issue. This won’t go away now.
In fact, I’m willing to bet you’ll see Keir Starmer raise it in Prime Minister’s Questions next week and I look forward to hearing the wild – and false – accusation with which Boris Johnson will attempt to defend himself.
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.
Some MPs – particularly those on the left of the political spectrum – are going to end up with proverbial egg on their faces after the scuffle involving Jacob Rees-Mogg at the University of the West of England.
It seems some were quick to condemn masked protesters who heckled Mr Rees-Mogg from the back of the hall in a confrontation that escalated until one man apparently tried to punch a supporter of the Conservative MP for North East Somerset.
In fact, footage shows that a white-shirted supporter of Mr Rees-Mogg had slapped a student – and this is what prompted the protester to aim a punch.
The woman who was hit, Andreea Dumitrache, has tweeted about what happened:
The member of the audience in the white shirt started getting violent towards the people being disruptive. I was standing in front of him when he punched me. No student was violent here. https://t.co/TKH2kjC9fR
it is pretty clear that the white shirted man attacked and the hooded man responded. To me this shows we need more non-violence training. Its very hard not to respond to violence with violence, takes practice but it matters
Here’s a comment sent in response to This Site’s previous article about the incident, from a person who was too cowardly to provide his own name but instead went by the imaginative pseudonym ‘z’:
look up the definition of a common assault spakka.
whiny left tries to deflect from yet another example of its own violent, hateful extremism.
According to the Urban Dictionary, a “spakka” (there are many different spellings, presumably indicating the illiteracy of those who use the word) is a derogatory term for people with mental and/or physical disabilities.
So this Rees-Mogg supporter is someone who discriminates against the disabled in the most insulting way possible. And they support physical attacks against other people. Despicable.
By the way, everyone who trains as a news reporter has to learn the definitions of certain crimes, including common assault. Assault happens when a person intentionally or recklessly causes another to believe they will be the victim of unlawful force. Actual harmful or offensive physical contact – like a punch – is legally defined as battery. White shirt man appears to commit both in the video evidence we’ve seen, although a jury may be asked to make the final decision.
So, not only is ‘z’ the kind of creature who tries to put other people down with derogatory language, they also pretend to know more than they do – again, to put others down. On top of all that, they then accuse others of “violent, hateful extremism”.
To that person, I say: If you want to see a violent, hateful extremist, just look in a mirror.
Eddie Briggs, below, makes an appropriate observation in a much milder way than I would have:
So let me get this straight. Jacob Rees Mogg (homophobic who says women who get pregnant through rape shouldn't be allowed an abortion) has a group of students protest at one of his talks. A Rees-Mogg supporter hits one of the female protesters. And Corbyn is to blame? Okay 🤨
Good point. The protesters had to be labelled as supporters of Jeremy Corbyn. Were they? And if they were, is he really to blame for their actions, which were simply to protest verbally until rent-a-thug turned up.
But let’s stay on the subject of Mr Corbyn, because this last bombshell is perhaps more pertinent than any of the others. It’s from Aleesha, who tweeted (and I’m going to have to quote her because for some reasons the tweet isn’t reproducing here):
“Honestly, there’s more outrage over the fact that Jacob Rees-Mogg was *not* hit than there was outrage over the fact that this week, it became apparent that a terrorist literally planned to assassinate Jeremy Corbyn.”
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.
NATO expands: On the left, the situation in 1990; on the right, the scene in 2009 – NATO expanded right up to Russia’s borders.
Isn’t it interesting, how concepts coincide?
Only last night I read, in Russell Brand’s Revolution: “When Mikhail Gorbachev, who it turns out was a lovely fella who bent over backwards to prevent nuclear war and deserved to be remembered for more than that birthmark on his head, allowed a unified Germany to enter NATO, a hostile military alliance, on the condition that ‘NATO would not expand one inch to the east,’ the US agreed. Then they expanded right into East Germany, likely giggling as they went. This dunderheaded truculence persisted under every US regime change… Clinton in his tenure expanded NATO right up to Russia’s borders. Chomsky says all this aggro we’re having today in the Crimea and Ukraine is because of these unreported acts of military expansionism by the West.”
Now here’s the Beast: “I … found this little piece in ‘The View from the Bridge’ column in Lobster 45, reproducing statements from elsewhere that NATO was being used to exploit the former eastern bloc countries that have joined it after the fall of Communism. Although over a decade old [bolding mine], it’s relevant now as we are in period of diplomatic tension with Russia over the civil war in Ukraine. This has been presented as a case of pro-Western Ukrainian patriots attempting to free themselves from Russian domination. The reality is somewhat murkier, as the pro-Western side themselves were guilty of considerable corruption. It also includes open Neo-Nazis.”
The stories quoted are about NATO bullying eastern European countries into selling off their national economic assets to foreigners and spending huge amounts of money on US-manufactured military hardware, under threat of losing a place in NATO military committees and command structures.
The Beast writes: “This makes you really wonder what the reality behind the ousting of President Yanukovych in Ukraine really was, and who was supposed to benefit: the Ukrainian people, or Western multinationals.”
And now Greece is rolling back the privatisation programme imposed by the West, against hugely unreasonable – yet mounting – opposition from the Troika and Western right-wingers.
The UK, it seems, is on the side of NATO, and – as long as we have a right-wing government – the privateers. This leads to a very worrying question:
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.