Ryan’s departure means half quitter group had been no-confidenced by members

Joan Ryan trying unsuccessfully last year to avoid a no-confidence vote

Enfield North MP Joan Ryan has announced her resignation from the Labour Party, again blaming supposed racism in the Labour Party – although she’s evidently happy enough to join a group in which 14% of its then-membership made a racist comment within hours of its formation.

Ryan’s departure means that fully half of the group – Ryan, Shuker, Smith and Leslie – had lost votes of no confidence brought by their local members because of their behaviour. In addition a fifth, Luciana Berger, avoided two motions of no confidence when they were withdrawn by local members.

When Ryan lost hers, after strenuous efforts to prevent the motion being debated, she lashed out petulantly at the “Trots Stalinists Communists” – her own local Labour Party – who voted against her.

Her departure also means that both pro-Israel groups within the Labour Party would be expected to have lost their chairs within a couple of days. However, LFI – the group chaired by Ryan – has said she will remain in place, although how this fits with its name ‘Labour Friends of Israel’ is unclear.

The SKWAWKBOX needs your support. This blog is provided free of charge but depends on the generosity of its readers to be viable. If you can afford to, please click here to arrange a one-off or modest monthly donation via PayPal or here for a monthly donation via GoCardless. Thanks for your solidarity so this blog can keep bringing you information the Establishment would prefer you not to know about.

If you wish to reblog this post for non-commercial use, you are welcome to do so – see here for more.


  1. Of course, Ryan exemplifies the ranting ‘accusers’ who have bedevilled Labour. She notoriously makes an appearance in Al Jazeera’s ‘The Lobby’, accusing an ordinary member of ‘antisemitism’ when asked – quite simply – what LfI sees as progress to the much vaunted ‘two state solution” in Palestine. She has no coherent answer, so departs planet Earth in a rant about the nature of the questioner.

    The excerpt is massively informative anout the tenor of LfI and its relationship to Israeli propaganda. If you haven’t seen it, do have a look, as it is very illustrative of the characters departing the PLP and their relationship to truth when making sordid accusations.

    1. When I watched Ryan ‘guiding’ the juniors into backing her interpretation of the conversation on the west bank settlements – when they clearly didn’t believe antisemitic statements had been made – I thought she dishonoured not just herself, her office and Labour but British Jewry and Parliament itself.

      1. Precisely. These people are doing enormous damage by pretending to represent the diverse Jewish community, and link them to support of a state engaged in ethnic cleansing (and, no – that’s not an exaggeration).

      2. What these idiots fail to appreciate is that their actions, far from striking a blow against AS, will just end up making it worse.

        If Berger thinks her social media persecution will now magically disappear, she’s in for a nasty surprise!

      3. And who will she blame for it now? Russia?

        It can no longer be Corbyn…

  2. ‘14% of it’s membership’ – being one of the seven – SB you really do choose your language with care and intent.

  3. These bozos think they’ll undermine Jeremy’s chances of getting elected if they leave the party now before the election, which they think is obviously coming soon !
    However, they’ll be replaced by a better group of loyal supporters who will go on to win and change Britain for the better !
    They will all be a footnote in History and wind up slinging hamburgers in McDonalds !

  4. It appears from more we hear of these defectors, their views and background – we now have a “Henry Jackson Party” based on the views of the Henry Jackson Society.


    They are not centrists nor liberals / social democrats in the way the SDP / Lib Dems were / are. They are basically an authoritarian UK variant of Rockefeller Republicanism / Reagan Democrats.

    I simply don’t believe there is much support for this sort of politics amongst the public at large at all. It’s effectively a globalist worldview for keeping the status quo.

  5. Having watched a recording of Joan Ryan’s antics at Conference and the resultant accusations of anti Semitism she levelled at a delegate I am very disappointed that she has resigned. In my opinion she should have been expelled.

  6. “However, LFI – the group chaired by Ryan – has said she will remain in place, although how this fits with its name ‘Labour Friends of Israel’ is unclear.”

    Exactly what status has LFI got in in the Labour Party, how is it affiliated to the party and is it subject to the party’s rules?

  7. LFI should be disaffiliated from the Labour Party as should the other Zionist group the JLM.

    1. Is the LFI an affiliated organisation?

      Labour Party Rule Book 2018 – Clause II.
      Party structure and affiliated organisations

      3. Organisations may, subject to the decision of the
      NEC, which shall be final and binding, affiliate to
      the Party if they fall within the following
      A. trade unions affiliated to the Trades Union
      Congress or are considered by the NEC to be
      bona fide trade unions
      B. co-operative societies
      C. socialist societies
      D. other organisations which, in the opinion of
      the NEC, have interests consistent with those
      of the Party.

      4. Each affiliated organisation must:
      A. accept the programme, policy and principles
      of the Party
      B. agree to conform to the constitution and
      standing orders of the Party
      C. submit its political rules to the NEC

      1. Surely Ryan’s departure is the first signal that the Jewish Labour Movement does indeed have every intention of disaffiliating from the Labour Party. The timing to occur at the time when they can do maximum damage to Labour.

      2. Yes. This raises an important question. In my view, the LfI is contrary to the non-racist policies of the Labour Party, given its explicit support of Israel’s apartheid policies.

    2. Jewish Labour members are not all Zionists and there is nothing wrong with Zionism in itself. Certainly, many of the loudest voices
      who advocate for Zionism have been dishonest, but we should not condemn all because of the actions of some…

      1. Sorry about the length of this post, but I thought it might be worthwhile putting together a more detailed background of what lies behind the current domestic slanging match over ‘antisemitism’ – which is, essentially a massive diversionary propaganda effort.

        You are absolutely right in effectively noting that the zionists do not represent the ‘Jewish Community’ as whole. Some of the most trenchant and incisive critics of Israel and zionism are Jews – particularly those of the Orthodox branches of the faith.

        Then, of course, there are the illusions about ‘Zionism’. In essence. It’s a world view that is Christian in origin (and these roots can still be clearly seen amongst Christian fundamentalists within the US). The modern understanding emerged during the late 19th Century as a form of nationalism related to the wider growth of that notion.

        It is, of course, based on mythology – the idea of a continuing ‘Jewish’ homeland in Palestine – based on denial of both real history and the comp[lex nature of genetic inheritance and migration. As such it has as much credibility as the Christian crusader’s claims to ownership.Which wouldn’t matter much if it didn’t impact today on the lives of the real indigenous inhabitants of the area. Mythological and religious nationalism has never had good results.

        It is interesting that, as it came to prominence in the early years of the 20th Century Zionism was opposed by the Board of Deputies and others as being contrary to the interests of Jews. They saw the separatist philosophy as aligning with the wishes of antisemites who wished to expel Jews from their societies.

        Treated symbolically – like other religious myths – ‘Zionism’ isn’t a problem. It became a problem when it became manifest in the takeover of another people’s settled homeland (and, remember, Palestine was, despite intermittent unrest, a fairly coherent but heterogeneous society always comprising members of the three Abrahamic faiths.

        The dirty paws of British imperialism are, of course, visible in the current mess. Establishing a ‘Jewish homeland’ was a way of dealing with what was seen by the establishment as Europe’s ‘Jewish problem’ , and, under the guise of magnanimity, getting rid of a refugee problem after WWII.

        Of course, the net result of the betrayal of trust towards the indigenous population was a long-lasting blowback which turned exiled defenders of their real homeland into ‘terrorists’.

        The problem with ‘Zionism’ on the ground is that it ineluctably leads to a racially discriminatory society, such as we now see in Israel/Palestine. A ‘modern’ egalitarian society cannot be based on ideas of religious or cultural distinction or exclusivity – whether it be the Islamic Sate or Israel. It is doomed to fail and cause much grief.

        Israel’s intransigence has led to the position where its continuing illegal occupation of even scraps of remaining land has rendered the stop-gap ‘two state’ solution a nonsense, and the current set-up of occupation, land theft and a concentration camp in Gaza will sustain only conflict. The escalation is visible – and evidenced in frantic Israeli attempts to prevent spread of knowledge about the horror inflicted on the Palestinian population.

        The logic is a one-state solution. But, of course, that implies the abandonment of mythological assumptions about culture and exclusivity. It won’t be easy, but the only alternative is continuing conflict.

      2. Interesting that RH can give his highly selective overview of the nature of Zionism as a political philosophy , and condemn it for its “mythology” and “exclusivity” – without once mentioning the over a thousand years of oppression, exclusion from the wider community, periodic mass expulsions, and regular pogroms, that the Jewish communities of all of “Christian Europe” faced – leading to the rise in the 19th century of the Zionist political philosophy that proposed that , just as across Europe bourgeois capitalist nationalism was creating modern nation states based on shared language and religion – so Jews needed a homeland and state to defend themselves from the eternal oppression being a minority in “Christian” societies had so far been their experience.

        Early Zionism did not see Palestine as the only possible land for this new state – but the deep historical roots of Jewish settlement in Palestine did undoubtedly make this a favourite. Yep we all know the Zionist claim that Palestine made a suitable land for a new Israel, because it was “a land without people – for a people without land” was a cynical myth. But given the regular Christian European colonial indigenous people displacements , land grabs, and mass genocides of the 18th and 19th centuries, in the Americas, Australia, New Zealand , Kenya, South Africa, and Tasmania (total genocide there) , this was the way Europeans viewed the rights of indigenous peoples at the time, barbaric as it was. Though strangely, no-one seems to be suggesting that the USA, or Australia, or modern Poland (sitting mostly on ancient Prussian German land after displacing 12 million Germans after WW2) are “illegitimate states”.

        RH’s highly selective faux magisterial critique of Zionism also, strangely, but par for the course for today’s Lefties, fails to mention the six million Jews murdered in the WW2 European Holocaust, and the fact that during the Shoah the home communities in Eastern Europe that the few survivors potentially could have returned to, in too many cases had been complicit collaborators in the genocide (Baltic states, Ukraine) or carried out post-war pogroms against returning survivors (Poland ). Now , we on the Left, particularly the Far Left, even today, sneer at the pre-war European Zionists for their unwillingness to give up the Jewish homeland goal of even Left Zionism – in favour of embracing the non discriminatory message of (revolutionary) socialism. Well , how did THAT debate pan out ? Who’s argument “won” ? Pretty much ALL the Jewish socialists who stayed behind to campaign for a non discriminatory socialist future, died in the Holocaust , along with the rest of the European Jewish community that waited too long before trying to escape the Holocaust. The simple fact is that, sneering references to the mistaken “mythologies” of Zionism by comfortable Lefties who have no family history or personal experience of oppression, and who did not lose entire families in the Shoah, do not capture the very real historical reality of endless oppression that created the ideology of Zionism. This smug dismissal, an editing out, of the suffering of the Jewish people, the ignoring of the fact that in 1949 the new State of Israel was a “lifeboat state” for a people that had been pretty much exterminated as a viable community across Europe, and had nowhere else to go , given the closing of borders to Jewish survivor refugees.

        None of this justifies a huge range of barbaric treatments of the Palestinian People by Israel at its formation, or since, but by leaving out the reality of the millennia long suffering of the Jewish People, particularly across Europe, the likes of RH smugly reduce the political Zionist MOTIVE to one the consequences of ascribing to an abstract ,incorrect, ideology, ie, “a group of European Jews in the 19th centuryfor some reason just decided to seize the lands of a group of Palestinians because they were religious and ethnic sectarians and believed that they’d all come from Palestine a long time ago”. The historical reality is so different – and so much more complex.

      3. “RH’s highly selective faux magisterial critique of Zionism also, strangely, but par for the course for today’s Lefties, fails to mention the six million Jews murdered in the WW2 European Holocaust,”

        Oh dear, ha’penny. Thanks for that ramble that misses the point by several thousand miles and erects generalised straw men (” today’s Lefties”) in this continuing rage against the light.

        Of course – that’s *my* *brief* summary of the impact of (mainly) the last 100 years or so of the zionist belief. It aims to outline the salient points, not be a total summary. But do argue with the substance – which is the way in which an exceptionalist philosophy has formed the basis of a pretty horrific colonialist regime, bent on the ethnic cleansing of Palestinian culture.

        I am interested in how your rants often turn out to circle round and meet the arguments of the right – whether in terms of Brexit, or here, where you evoke the Holocaust as a virtue signal. It is a mark of an impoverished and confused outlook to imply the right-wing trope of holocaust denial against those of us who focus on the current situation and describes it as it is.

        Just in terms of issues you raise in your illogical expedition into self-righteous pretence of argument. :

        1. In what way is the basis of Zionism *not* a mythology?
        2. In what way does the victimisation of Jews in previous generations justify that of another people?
        3. Do you contest the anti-semitic motives behind the Balfour Declaration, and the washing of hands by the western powers after WWII so that they could avoid dealing with refugees?

        The actual events of this and other times are demeaned by this knee-jerk virtue-signalling, and, remembering them is obviously implicit . Which alters nothing about the present situation in Palestine.

        I name you as Joan Ryan and claim my ten quid.

  8. Why are you so keen on leaving the EU? It’s far the most stupid decision of my 73 years.

  9. The only independent evidence we have on anti-Semitism within Labour comes from a Jewish group set up to monitor anti-Semitism; The Institute for Jewish Policy Research.

    It constantly astounds me that their research, published two years ago, at the height of the anti-Semitism furore, is not frequently mentioned. But then it is awkward for the media and their darlings who have just left Labour.

    The data clearly shows that, although anti-Semitism exists in Labour, it is no greater than in any other party or the wider British public.

    This indicates that those who claim they are leaving Labour because of anti-Semitism are merely posturing and trying to mislead for their own cheap political purposes…

    1. The methodology is also very questionable.

      In actuality, other research shows that there is *less* evidence of antisemitic attitudes in the Labour Party.

      P.S. The Graun is still avidly censoring comments that outline the questionable basis of the ‘antisemitism’ stories.

    1. Careless, crass, blanket statement, Steve Richards, and many other posters still apparently in complete denial that there IS indeed a long-standing anti-Semitism problem ( of a peculiar sort – mainly quite distinct from the usual unambiguously anti-Jewish stuff peddled by the far Right) on the Left – mainly due to lazy use of language and simplistic historical analysis (imposed on the Left historically by Soviet Stalinism) .

      For the Labour Right neoliberal wreckers the accusation of “anti-Semitism” is indeed all-too-often a cynical misapplication of the term to smear anyone who dares to criticise the unacceptable actions of the Israeli government and state. But those on the Left who ignorantly, or otherwise, peddle the utter lies that “Rich Jews were the major funders of the slave trade” , or casually use that historically deeply ambiguous term “Zionists” in a non-defined way that is often simply a euphemism for “Jew” and segues into all that deeply ingrained dog whistle fascist “international Jewish conspiracy” filth, or argue that in the 1930’s and 40’s Zionist political organisations deliberately collaborated (rather than under duress cut dodgy deals to save Jewish lives) with the Nazis , or uncritically cosy up to clerico-fascist definitely anti-Semitic Islamic fundamentalist organisations – even tolerating them carrying “Hitler was right” placards on pro Palestinian marches the Left supports, have all to often been guilty of intentional or , much more often, careless anti-Semitism.

      A lot less smugness, and more careful use of inflammatory or dog whistle meaning laden language by the Left on the Israel/Palestine issue is called for , or we simply affirm the largely bogus accusations made by the Labour Right wreckers and their allies. Supporting the Palestinian cause and criticising the brutal and illegal actions of the Israeli government and state is an internationalist socialist duty, but lazily parroting old Stalinist era ideology about Israel (and similarly mis-describing vicious murderous surrounding dictatorships like Iran, or Syria or Gaddafi era Libya as some sort of “progressive axis of resistance”), and using the dodgy multi-meaning saturated word “Zionism” when less ambiguous terms would suffice, is to do our socialist cause no favours at all.

      1. jpenney 20/02/2019 at 11:37 am

        Wow, what a fertile imagination you have!! You managed to extrapolate all the above from just 7 words –
        “Anti-Semitism is when you criticise Israel.”

        Or were you just looking for an opportunity to have pro-Zionist rant?

  10. Another garbled, circular non-argument : “A lot less smugness, and more careful use of inflammatory or dog whistle meaning laden language”

    No. The use of language is precise (or as precise as any terminology will allow). And ‘smugness’? Don’t be daft. It’s the opposite – alert to the manipulations of the pro-Israel lobby.

    ‘Zionism’ is used to denote what it denotes – a particular set of religious/mythological beliefs. As said, these are not singularly Jewish beliefs, nor are they held by all Jews – the orthodox community vehemently opposes them.

    Similarly the term ‘Israel’ – a state that incorporates Zionist beliefs of cultural hierarchy and entitlement..

    And the intention? To clearly separate opposition to the two from the actuality of ‘antisemitism’, which has a clear meaning, despite the intention to confuse it. It’s the conflation that is inflammatory. It is the *right* that constantly tries to muiddy the use of the term. Or had you really not noticed?

    As to the rest – a mish-mash of whataboutery. We can talk about Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia or Libya. But they are not the subject of this conversation. And they are all different in terms of the analysis we might make. We can talk about other forms of religious/cultural beliefs and their effects – the roots of the Christian right in the US, Islamic fundamentalism and IS etc. But this is about the predatory regime supported by the west that is Israel.

    And – importantly – you can’t change the situation without addressing the mythologies on which Israel is currently based as an apartheid state.

    1. As a P.S. on this ha’penny distorted rant :

      I noted in :

      “those on the Left who ignorantly, or otherwise, peddle the utter lies that “Rich Jews were the major funders of the slave trade”

      … what seems a distorted reference to Jackie Walker (an anti-racist of some pedigree currently suspended at the behest of the pro-Israel lobby).

      The reference is, again, a distortion worthy of the right-wing Israel lobby. My joking reference to recognising Joan Ryan in ha’penny’s posts seems a bit close to the truth in their transmutation of reality.

      For anyone who wants to see the depths of inflammatory distortion that the Israeli lobby stoops to, I can do no better than cite Jackie’s own writing :


      It is also worthwhile to have a look at relevant articles on the Jewish Voice for Labour website to counter the sort of crap that is being promulgated by ha’penny and his friends.

      1. Poor effort, RH. You really are a shameless huckster troll . This is what Walker wrote , in a debate on Facebook : from Wikipedia

        “in…a discussion in which a pro-Israel friend of Walker’s had raised the question of ‘the debt’ owed to the Jews because of the Holocaust”. Walker then said:

        “Oh yes – and I hope you feel the same towards the African holocaust? My ancestors were involved in both – on all sides as I’m sure you know, millions more Africans were killed in the African holocaust and their oppression continues today on a global scale in a way it doesn’t for Jews… and many Jews (my ancestors too) were the chief financiers of the sugar and slave trade which is of course why there were so many early synagogues in the Caribbean. So who are victims and what does it mean? We are victims and perpetrators to some extent through choice. And having been a victim does not give you a right to be a perpetrator.”

        Once challenged of course , Walker massively backpeddled from the lying claim that “many Jews were the CHIEF financiers of the sugar and slave trade” to an admission, that a FEW Jewish capitalists in a few places had funded parts of the sugar and slave trade”. Which is not surprising – as capitalists do what capitalists do . But of course Walker was, in her original claim, lazily trying to score cheap points by downplaying the significance of the WW2 Jewish holocaust for the formation of Israel , by irrelevantly comparing it to the Black African holocaust of slavery – as if this was some sort of “top trumps” competition – and then her lying original claim that many Jews were “the CHIEF financiers of the sugar and slave trade” has only one real purpose , ie, to evoke the response, that “those Jews got what they had coming” – as if the entire Jewish people has a historical guilt for the very isolated participation of a few Jewish capitalists in the sugar and slave trade (most funders of this trade were European Christians. This lazy stuff from Walker, does of course directly feed off and into a common meme, originating with the originally viciously anti-Semitic US Nation of Islam cult, and has continuing resonance in sections of the Black UK community in which Walker has always moved. Walker then followed up this faux pas with insensitive provocative comments on International Holocaust Day. Walker has no place in our Labour Party. And neither does anyone who can’t see anything wrong in what she wrote

      2. jpenney 20/02/2019 at 3:59 pm

        From what you say above the only substantive issue you really have with what Jackie Walker actually said is not whether Jewish financiers were involved in financing the slave trade but is simply a dispute about how many were involved.

      3. “You really are a shameless huckster troll”

        As usual the ad hominem mark of a defeated argument. You can;y resist it, can you?

        The core of what Walker said is :

        “.. having been a victim does not give you a right to be a perpetrator”

        A simple statement of a moral principle and indictment of using generalised historical victimisation used as an excuse for imitation… which brings us back to Israel. It is, in fact, an affirmation of common humanity – not a mark of discrimination.

        I think Jackie Walker’s record on anti-racism is somewhat more credible than your floundering in confused theoretical pseudo-left crap.

        And “provocative comments on International Holocaust Day” amount to an inclusive reminder of other acts of ethnic murder – as evidenced in the massive toll of western colonial activities in Africa (20m+ in the Congo alone). I thought the whole point of anti-racism was *not* being culturally selective???

        Inclusion of the Nakba and associated acts of ethnic cleansing in remembrance might underline this non-discriminatory principle of true anti-discriminatory attitudes.

      4. And another P.S. :

        You’re attempt to link Jackie Walker with “anti-Semitic US Nation of Islam cult” is a classic smear tactic as used by the right – explicit, or under-cover.

      5. The pompous troll,”RH”, must surely be no more than a computerised random bullshit generator programme . Or an over-emotional 15 year old schoolboy, with very little historical knowledge, background socialist understanding, or ability to move beyond simplistic slogans. Whichever it is, this conspiraloon stuff is seriously juvenile. Sometimes negative information about people, or things said by people, seen as “on the Left” are not conspiracy-based lies, but unfortunately just the truth. The other possibility is that “RH” is just a Tory Troll account shit-stirring the “anti Semitism” issue to draw real unwise Left Wingers into making unwise comments in agreement.

      6. Sometimes negative information about people, or things said by people, seen as “on the Left” are not conspiracy-based lies, but unfortunately just the truth.

        …..but more often than not they are simply the negative fantasies of Zionists doing their disingenuous best to discredit anyone who opposes or criticises the Israeli State

      7. If you really think that my beef with the propagation of the blatant ( old Nation of Islam propagated ) historical lie by Jackie Walker in her original post that “many Jews were the Chief financiers of the sugar and slave trade” , and her deliberate intimate interconnection of this calumny with the total red herring contextualisation of this claim with the Jewish WW2 Holocaust and the totally unrelated huge death toll of the sugar and slave trades, is just an argument about “how many Jews financed the slave trade”, then you are a moron, Steve H. Try reading my posts again, and pay attention this time.

      8. jpenney 20/02/2019 at 8:57 pm

        It appears to be the only thing you have any disagreement with her about that has any factual basis. The rest of your accusations and assertions seem to be entirely based on the contextualisation that you have imposed upon her actions. The only evidence you appear to have is the fantasy you’ve dreamt up yourself about what she must have been thinking.
        You also appear to be the only one here stirring the A/S pot.

Leave a Reply