The truth about ‘applause’ for quitters at PLP meeting

The Establishment media are shoring up the seven quitters

The Establishment media has claimed that the ‘insignificant seven’ quitters received a round of applause at last night’s meeting of the ‘PLP’ (parliamentary Labour party).

Unsurprisingly, this portrayal does not fit the facts.

PLP chair John Cryer made a statement that it was sad that seven former colleagues had left – and that statement received some applause, but at no point were the quitters themselves applauded.

In addition, not all MPs attend PLP meetings – in many cases because of bullying behaviour by so-called ‘moderates’ – so the meetings tend to be unrepresentative of the PLP as a whole.

SKWAWKBOX comment:

More or less the only thing giving the quitters any credibility is the dishonest support of the so-called ‘mainstream media’. Yet again reality and the media representation are a significant distance apart.

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. I clicked on the headline on the Guardian webpage last night, expecting to find an article describing the “event”, and none turned up.
    I immediately dismissed it as fake news, and considered the possible fate of my subscription to it.

  2. That is stretching it a bit to say there was applause when Cryer said it was sad to see them go. The 7 as we know have some other support in the PLP which is and has been stuffed with right wingers (naturally so- vast majority came in in 90s and noughties.) In the end it will run its natural course and meanwhile the left’s hopes to save the NHS, improve housing, nationalise some public services and put an end to austerity, will be put on hold. The splitteroons are therefore low-lifes politically -in it for themselves, without stature and endlessly undermining the Front Bench.

  3. Still more splitters rumoured upto 30 or so ,, que series of timed resignations for max damage/impact ,usual whining bullshit lies as reasons .
    Christ we should take the initiative, pse NEC give ALL clps the green lights for deselection ,lets get this fucking job done NOW.

    1. The speed and nature of Watson’s reaction rather suggests collusion.

      He wants Corbyn to replace his supporters with ‘moderates’. Presumably, the plan is that they could then stage a mass resignation to kick start a coup.

      I hope that Watson is replaced as a Labour candidate for the next election.

      1. Agreed , I think this was all planned at the gang of 11’s secret or not so secret meeting a few months ago , can’t nor care to remember where it was , and I too hope that Watson realises his ambitions to be the leader of a party , it just won’t be The Labour Party .

  4. Cannot believe that this level of abuse of the electoral system is built into the system, need to tweak recall rules,
    Every public administration system has to have an element of discretion to deal with unforeseen events

  5. Slightly off topic but Katty Kay on Beyond 100 Days earlier this evening implied that anything other than centrism was extremism – she meant, of course, left wing like JC or right wing like Tommy Robinson.
    Certainly she wasn’t referring to the extremists in government who are helping the 1% to hoover up everything that’s worth having so they can rent it back to us.
    Makes me so angry that even their casual use of language brainwashes the unworldly. Grrr.

    1. And “centrism” in that context will be whatever keeps corporations / bankers / media and the “Deep State” happy.

      Charles Kennedy after all was a real centrist. And he was treated like an extremist. Tim Farron whilst not someone I agree with, could also have been described as fairly centrist – left of the Lib Dems and voted against the worst of the coalition. Again treated like a nutter.

      Centrism in the context used has little to do with being somewhere smack bang between social democracy and Tory wet on economics and foreign policy and all to do with what the establishment want. After all the 2017 Labour manifesto was not revolutionary socialism and was simply mixed market keynesianism with moderated capitalism for the majority of the economy, bar a few essential monopoly public services delivered along the same sort of state delivery as the police and armed forces are.

      1. There’s a dawning realisation in some of the MSM punditry that pretty much the whole industrial sector, despite previous assumptions to the contrary, might actually turn out to be of strategic importance to the country. Duh.
        Tory boasts about and reliance upon inward investment are looking distinctly ill-considered when so many are considering upping brex-sticks.
        Remember the “Buy British” campaign from olden times?
        “Invest British” would have to precede Buy British today.

  6. They – the smearers/deceivers – never miss a trick do they. A dirty trick! So, in this case, millions of people have been deceived in to believing that the Seven received a round of applaus from fellow Labour MPs and, as such, have their support. And it is of course no coincidence that the Seven made their announcement on a Monday, as such – ie THEY had already thought of this particular falsehood and THAT is precisely why they chose a Monday, when the PLP meets, as they do EVERY Monday evening when Parliament is in session. And it is of course indicative of how devious they are!

  7. I happened to come across the following article (from February of last year) a bit earlier whilst doing some research, and in particular, the following comment, which I’m sure they – the person who wrote it – won’t mind me posting here on SB (I’ve split it up in to paragraphs to make it easier on the eye):

    Actually historically Ken Livingstone was correct, the Haavara Agreement was negotiated by the German Zionist Federation and was seen by the Nazis as a means of breaking the economic boycott that Germany was subjected to at the time.

    If you want to split hairs, it is not certain that Hitler was personally involved in facilitating arrangements but it’s stretching credulity to suppose the arrangement didn’t have his tacit consent. My question is wither [whether] this factually selective attack [is] out of the blue?

    Many of those within the Jewish community have been moaning about Ken Livingstone for ages – they are exclusively from the Zionist faction of that community and include the likes of Jeremy Newmark (who has threatened legal action) and Ruth Smeeth who has claimed quite ludicrously that there is a backlog of five thousand cases of anti-semitism waiting to be adjudicated by the Disputes Panel.

    Clearly Ken Livingstone is seen as a totem or scalp worth going after – never mind letting facts and due process get in the way. It is a matter of regret that a fellow Labour Party member finds it necessary to launch such an attack. The answer as to why I believe, may lie in the regrettable fact that there are those within Labour who would seek to undermine those on the left who support Jeremy Corbyn and indeed have formed an unholy alliance with the Zionist faction within the Labour party to do so. Notable examples would be Emma Picken an activist within Heidi Alexander’s Lewisham East constituency and Euan Phillips Chair of Tonbridge and Malling CLP who support the spurious charity Campaign Against Anti-semitism and Labour Against Anti-semitism – the latter has of course no official standing in the party.

    Having read your extremely biased and selective article I have to conclude that the author is a fellow travellers and I would dismiss it for the vindictive, politically charged, and co-ordinated nonsense that it is.


    And yet again, I would add the following:

    It’s difficult to choose which aspect of the ‘anti-semitism’ Smear Campaign is the worst and the most despicable – ie 1. Falsely accusing innocent people of anti-semitism; 2. Deceiving millions of people with said falsehoods; 3. Subverting democracy by doing so; 4. Causing worry and concern and consternation amongst a large section of the Jewish Community; or 5. Using the very thing that led to the Holocaust as a weapon against your political opponents, or ‘enemies’, as they would no doubt see it.

    They are all as bad as each-other!

    1. THEY will probably do it one at a time just to keep it going for as long as possible. I mean it’s absurd to imagine that Ryan didn’t know what the Seven had planned for yesterday and, as such joined them, but for the fact they want to stretch it out as long as possible, keep it in the headlines, and make as much capital out of it as they possibly can.

      Joan Ryan WHO, apart from anything else, was caught on camera falsely accusing a party member of anti-semitism (in the third part of Al Jazeera’s undercover investigation The Lobby).

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: