Uncategorized

Breaking: left near-clean sweep for London regional board

The Labour left has won an almost clean sweep of all elected positions to Labour’s London regional board – normally a bastion of the Progress/Labour First right – with wins for all but one of the published left slate.

Two positions went to a recount, others were won comfortably. The left slate is shown below:

Aghileh Djarfani-Marbini was the only left-slate candidate not to win

The result is a triumph for left organisation, not least because of the widespread phenomenon of right candidates claiming to be pro-Corbyn in spite of being backed by the two right-wing pressure groups.

Congratulations to all the successful candidates – and to London Labour members, who should now see a far more representative behaviour at regional level and a smoother degree of cooperation with new regional director Hazel Flynn.

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.

22 comments

    1. Signed it twice but to what good end?

      One thing that has struck me hard today is that, in a week when Theresa May can still find the cojones to back uber-cretin Failing Grayling, Jeremy Corbyn cannot do the same for Chris Williamson.

      That should be his epitaph, cos he’s fucked now!

      1. The above was addressed to timfrom in response to his/her initial question, and probably should have read:

        To show our solidarity with Chris.

  1. I notice the guardian is now quoting from the TIG group rather than the Labour party – Berger is doing this and Chukka is doing that. I think this shows where the direction of all the media intends to go. Fake polls indicating that they are equal in electoral support will bridge the issue that Labour represents virtually half the country yet is being literally ignored by the media.

  2. It’s strange, I just did a search (on duckduckgo) re >luciana berger threat to unborn child<, and the only result that came up that was relevant was the Sunday Times, who she's done an interview with. The Times has a paywall of course, but I signed up for two free articles a week about eight months ago, so I signed in and read it. Unsurprisingly, it was in effect a hit piece on Jeremy Corbyn and the left. The following is an extract from it – ie a paragraph – and what she says at the end of paragraph is a joke, and I actually burst out laughing when I read it, it's THAT preposterous:

    There have also been horrific personal threats. “In the wake of the murder of Jo Cox, someone sent a picture of a massive machete and said I was going to get it like Jo Cox got it. A guy was arrested for making death threats and when they seized his phones and so on, it transpired he’d downloaded terrorist material.” A letter was hand-delivered to her office. “It said I was going to have acid thrown on me and be stabbed. That was signed off by people who said that they were supporters of Jeremy Corbyn, but who knows? Sadly, the police didn’t find them.”

    Yes, she covers herself by saying: "…but who knows?", but, er, I think we ALL know, including her! What she DOESN'T say is: '…. but who knows, it could have been enemies of Jeremy Corbyn and the left, done with the intention of tarnishing them all as violent racists'. Or are we supposed to believe that SHE really believes for one second that JC supporters would do something so damaging to him, and the left. Of course she doesn't. Oh, and right, it was "signed off by people…", yeah, sure, as if! Anyway, sadly, the police didn't find them.

    Further on in the hit-piece – quoting her – it says the following:

    “There was a summer of antisemitism, when there almost wasn’t a day that went by without an article that exposed Jeremy’s own involvement and actions.” What caused most offence, she says, “was the video of him saying that British Jews ‘don’t understand English irony’, that we were seen as the ‘other’. That really struck to the core.”

    Hmm, I think that tells us all we need to know about Ms Berger, and is evidence of her malicious intent to smear Jeremy and the left, because you can be 150% certain that, like us, she knows that Jeremy was referring to a couple of trouble-makers who take pleasure in disrupting pro-Palestinian meetings, as does everyone else that used the totally distorted and dishonest version to smear Jeremy with. Jeremy was being sarcastic. End of.

    Anyway – as I was fairly certain WOULD be the case – there are no details given regarding the alleged threat to her unborn child's life, and I strongly suspect we won't be getting any!

    1. Afterthought: Anyway, the KEY thing – which I forgot to mention above – is that she DOESN’T say at any point in the ST article that the police have apprehended the culprit who made the (alleged) threat against her unborn child’s life, which you WOULD of course, if THAT were the case. And as I said at the end of the above post, there are no details given in relation to the event at all – ie when it happened (supposedly sometime in the past two weeks since she – and her colleagues – left the LP), or how it was ‘delivered’….. was it an email, or a tweet, or what, or what it was that the culprit actually said. Perhaps they’re still working on all that!

      Given that this threat against her unborn child’s life was the key thing she mentioned in the TV piece shown yesterday – which was obviously done specifically for that purpose – and is also the first thing mentioned, in effect, in the ST interview, it does seem very odd that she wouldn’t have mentioned a few of the details – in passing – in EITHER case, or that the ST journalist who conducted the interview wouldn’t think to ask her WHEN it happened AND whether it was an email, or a tweet, or what, AND what the culprit actually said. But No, she doesn’t offer any of these details, and HE, or SHE doesn’t think to ask. Very odd.

      Anyhow, the point is, that given that the culprit obviously HASN’T been apprehended, then the ONLY way SHE could possibly know the culprit was a former Labour Party member is……. wait for it!, if the culprit themselves mentioned it when they made the (alleged) threat.

      And I can’t help but wonder if they – the culprit – explained why they left!

      PS And I suspect, sadly, that the culprit Won’t be caught by the police.

      1. For your information, another poll result was added to the wikipedia list of poll results today – ie an Opinium poll for The Observer conducted between the 26th of Feb and the 1st of March, which has the Tories on 40%, six points ahead of Labour. So the next yougov poll for the Times – which is due anytime – should have the Tories TEN points ahead!

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election

    2. Just to sum up….. Regarding the letter which Ms Berger claims was hand-delivered to her office (WHICH office?), that said she was going to have acid thrown on her and be stabbed, and was signed by people who said that they were supporters of Jeremy Corbyn, AND her claim that a former Labour supporter (perhaps they left after JC was elected leader!) made a threat against the life of her unborn child, I DON’T believe a single word of it!

      Does it sound remotely plausible that a group of people would write such a letter AND then sign it with false names (they are hardly going to put their REAL names) AND point out in such a letter that they are supporters of Jeremy Corbyn. Right, of course, sounds totally plausible, doesn’t it! And then we have someone ELSE that threatens the life of her unborn child, and then – as an afterthought, no doubt – thought they’d mention to her that they’re a former LP member. Well, I mean, you WOULD, wouldn’t you!

      There WAS no threat made to her unborn child’s life – or a hand-delivered letter – but you can be absolutely certain that a former Labour Party member – amongst others – was BEHIND these diabolical and disgusting smears, and THAT is what she was revealing when she said that, revealing it to the tens of thousands of sociopaths out there who have known from the outset – and have been loving every minute if it – that ALL that is happening is part of a black op to demonise JC and the left, and sabotage the possibility of winning a GE and forming a government and transforming society for the better.

  3. Useless police.
    Never caught a single unicorn, or even an alien (except at Roswell, obviously. That definitely happened) – and they were abducting people all over the place.
    Never more than twenty-odd prosecutions of antisemitic crimes a year either – in the whole country – and we all know how prevalent antisemitism is, surrounded by antisemites as we are in Labour.

  4. Sorry to bang on a bit, but I thought it might be worthwhile just going through the illogic of the present situation at length instead of just commenting on the immediate.

    “Keep calm and carry on” I thought this morning. The intent was to stand back a bit and not get too wound up about the antisemitism scam – or , more particularly, the desperate state of the media in this country.

    But, like Allan Howard, I do tend to be drawn into checking the latest crap that has oozed over the pages of the ‘free’ press.

    But, there is a case for clearing the fog. So this term ‘antisemitism’. It *actually* has come to mean in common parlance.

    “Actions or speech expressing antagonism or hatred towards those of the Jewish faith/culture *because they are Jews*”

    My definition. But I think it has a reasonable clarity, such as was absent from the IHRA muumble. And, let’s be clear, if you’re going to have a working definition, it is essential that it is clear – as unambiguous as possible. I might have been tempted to go back to the original meaning of the term ‘semitic’ so that the term was equally applicable to Palestinians, who are a semitic people – but, for simplicity, let’s keep it tied to the later, narrow understanding.

    Now then, I thought : what would be one key characteristic of someone holding ‘antisemitic’ views? Would they not wish to exclude Jewish people from their society – as was the policy in the Third Reich and other societies during the nationalist upwelling originating in the 19th century? Would they not be happy to endorse Israel as the true ‘home’ of Jews? The place to which they should be expelled? (Again, the historical references are obvious)

    So (bear with me) : logic might suggest – if ‘institutional antisemitism’ is a feature of the Labour Party, there would be evidence of such demands being made by members. ‘Antisemitism’ would manifest itself through this and other features held in common with the Germany of the 1930s. Because that’s the implication of the charge of ‘antisemitism’.

    So where are such demands, attributable to individual members, but, more importantly, to the Party as part of its policies?

    Do you know any member who would not wholly endorse the taking of action against anyone expressing truly antisemitic comments?

    Pass.

    What seems to be the problem is, in fact, the opposite. There are expressions of concern (such as were formerly expressed by the then Board of Deputies) about the nature of Israel as a validation of antisemitism and the implicit endorsement of the ‘foreigner’ idea. Then there is concern about the impact of such a colonial enterprise, based on discriminatory cultural ideas, on the lives of the indigenous people of Palestine.

    Now, I know, for many that is a bit of a ‘granny sucking eggs’ statement of the bleedin’ obvious. But it is worth saying as the media seems to constantly propagate confusion between two contradictory ideas (antagonism towards a class of people v. profound criticism of a sectarian state) – as, indeed does the IHRA definition.

    Simple question : do you know any Labour Party member who has expressed the view that Jews should go to Israel? I certainly don’t.

    But then, we have what may be thought milder forms of antagonism. These are constantly re-iterated in the media (I’ve just checked the (ironically named)’ ‘Observer’ today. And we have the usual mish-mash – too extensive to detail – that elide ‘allegation’ with ‘culpability’. Of course, such confusion is manna to the insincere and venal – as we well know

    Of course, Chris Williamson’s case is an archetypal example of this sort of distortion. It becomes part of the taken-for-granted narrative – it is just accepted as a prejudicial remark when all he said (based on factual information) was that the whole issue had been magnified beyond any sane analysis of offense or culpability.

    “Suspended!!!???” would be an objective reaction to an event that actually proves the critics’ case.

    It’s worth looking at the scant detail of cases listed in the Observer today in terms of asking the questions :

    1. “Is this a fair representation of the facts?”
    2. “If it is, does it reflect *real* antisemitism?” (as defined above)
    3. “Does it connect to a validated Party member, or the Party at large?
    4. “Does the accuser have a possible ulterior motive?”

    The assumptions behind so many accusations really don’t stand up to this sort of forensic examination. One example mentioned is the alleged ‘antisemitic mural’. It has now become a ‘fact’ that it was antisemitic in intent. Information that I have seen casts doubt on that analysis, but this is excluded from mention.

    Then we have the ironic. One piece today is a fairly typical one by Nick Cohen – a journalist singularly lacking in either ability for rational analysis, or self awareness. After berating Labour in general for ‘promoting antisemitism’ and linking Chris Williamson to this imaginary concealed policy, he ends his piece by condemning the sort of careless mud-slinging (by a Tory MP) that he has just indulged in himself :

    ” when the (black) MP David Lammy attacked May as “suburban”, it was a racist “dog whistle” to rally the left against the millions of suburban whites who support her. “Because what does he mean by ‘suburban’ if not white people?”

    Lammy meant nothing of the sort.”

    This epitomizes the ‘no win’ narrative of the fakes and the mendacious that govern the media.

    1. “But, like Allan Howard, I do tend to be drawn into checking the latest crap that has oozed over the pages of the ‘free’ press.”

      I stopped looking a long time ago. Jan 2015 was the last time I listened to or read UK PSP and MSM so called news and current affairs output. I am grateful to those who have the stomach for it though and especially those who push back but I feel so much better removing the dirty tricks and hysteria from my life. UK dominant media should have a health warning along with a democracy in serious jeopardy warning.

      British main media is certainly free, free to mislead, misinform, omit and push endless war propaganda that serves the current failing, flailing and corrupted system.

      “This epitomizes the ‘no win’ narrative of the fakes and the mendacious that govern the media.”

      Well put.

      1. I certainly appreciate your solution, Maria. Mine isn’t quite as complete, but I never listen to the ‘Today’ program or television news and current affairs, and now just scan the Scott Press papers’ headlines and read a few items that might have relevance or real interest (some remain).

        I have the honour of being blocked from their website – not for any extreme rants, but as a result of being persistent in simply contradicting their narrative and stating the facts. Although contrary comments are allowed through in ‘moderation’ :-),the Viner ‘courageous journalism’ fantasy really doesn’t ‘like it up ’em’ – especially if you persistently point out the abysmal cowering journalistic failure that is the reality on the ‘antisemitism’ narrative. They really don’t like that aspect of the revealed truth being spoken!

    2. Given that the Guardian rarely has a Comment section these days – and especially articles/falsehoods disseminated about JC and colleagues (and for the obvious reason) – we are ALL in effect blocked.

      1. You have a point. And, for some considerable time, key writers feverishly imagining ‘antisemitism’ have had a ring of steel protecting them from corrective comment.

        The Groan’s ‘community standards’ include never mentioning anything that suggests that the basis of Israel’s settlement, constitution and policy is other than a holy enterprise.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: