Take-down of Tinge-group political pitch is probably best thing you’ll read this weekend

Umunna’s 20,000-word ‘pamphlet’ broken down hilariously into a handful of tweets

Great question, Chuka Umunna…

Quitter-group front-man – but not leader – Chuka Umunna has published a video touting a 20,000-word ‘pamphlet’ that he ‘has written today’ outlining his idea of what ‘progressives [are] for‘.

Of course, 20,000 words is stretching the definition of a pamphlet – and its content is stretching the definition of ideas. Like his video, it’s vacuous to an extreme degree – not to mention often self-negating.

The video itself looks like a parody made for a comic effect entirely in keeping with a non-party that lurched into a racism scandal within two hours of its launch:

Against all expectations, however, the comedic value of the video has been exceeded by a series of tweets from Twitter user Richard James – who did the entire country a favour by reading and interpreting it so you don’t have to. The results are not only very funny, but also perfectly sum up the emptiness of a group that wants to win the youth vote by pledging to bring back conscription.

The thread has had nothing like the exposure it deserves, so the SKWAWKBOX is offering its readers the chance to enjoy and share:

SKWAWKBOX comment:

The combination of rapier-deft subtlety and sledgehammer wit to expose patent nonsense is a work of art that deserves to be read by every politically-interested person – and by everyone who isn’t that politically interested but could smell the ordure on the waft of Umunna’s hot air.

And in the idea of a ‘20,000-word pamphlet’.

Every reader will have his/her own favourite – but it’s a tough choice from a rich seam. Well done ‘Richard James’. A grateful nation thanks you.

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. Click on the hyperlink on Richard James’ name where it first appears (in Red) and it should take you to twitter, where the thread and much other good stuff from “Richard James” can be read.

      2. Try harder “timfrom” – Just use the “view” function on your computer menu bar to increase the font size to, say, 200% . Not too hard is it ?

  1. Three days ago, ‘Snowy’ posted a link to an article in the Sunderland Echo about a local councillor – and former mayor – who has been suspended from the Labour Party for sharing a youtube video of a Sky News interview with George Galloway on facebook, during which George says – amongst other things – that the whole Labour ‘anti-semitism’ thing is a “black op”. The article doesn’t say who it was that made the complaint against him (that led to the councillor’s suspension) which would, of course, be interesting to know.

    Anyway, I’m posting a link to the article again (for anyone who didn’t see it before), and also a link to the youtube vid of the Sky News interview with George Galloway (9 minutes) AND also to another youtube vid I came across in the list of results that came up when I did a search on youtube for the Sky News interview with George – ie a Sky News interview posted the day BEFORE the GG interview titled: ‘Labour MP vows to ‘cleanse’ party of antisemites and slams Derek Hatton and George Galloway’. Can you guess who it was?! Clue: It wasn’t a woman.

    Yes, it was the dispicable John Mann, as you no doubt guessed straight away. I haven’t watched it yet – although I WILL force myself too, sickening as it will be to listen to a vile and abhorrent fascist black propagandist spouting his lies – and given that it was posted the day BEFORE the GG vid was posted, I can only assume that George ‘demanded’ to be given air-time by Sky News to respond, albeit indirectly (I say indirectly, because I certainly don’t recall George responding to, or mentioning John Mann by name). Anyway, first off, here’s a link to the Sunderland Echo article:


    NB As you may know, if you put more than one link in a post, it has to wait to be moderated, so I’m posting the links to the two youtube vids as separate comments, so to speak. See below.

      1. The John Mann interview (posted on the 20th of February – 11 minutes):

  2. ‘What are Progressives for?’

    A question the nation has been pondering about since you [Chukka] rather presumptuously put yourself forward as their spokesperson. We’ve yet to come up with an answer.

  3. I thought I would just do a search to see whether or not George Galloway’s Sky News interview was widely reported by the MSM, and it was! Anyway, in the process, I came across an excellent article by George on the RT website from last September entitled ‘Bogus anti-Semitism smears unmask UK democracy as little more than a fraud’, so please read and share:


    PS And if and when you watch the above two videos on youtube – if you haven’t done so already – check out the comments section on both, where you’ll find that just about ALL of the people who have left comments are well aware that it’s all one big falsehood come Smear Campaign (and knew THAT prior to watching the video), which is very encouraging.

  4. I read it by enlarging screen with zoom. Sort of funny. But not that funny. Need to read Umunna’s pamphlet to get the humour I suppose but I can’t plough through it.

  5. 20,000 words what a joke. Here for comparison are the lengths of some documents that actually did change the face of politics.

    US Declaration of Independence and Constitution (original version) – 6001 words
    Communist Manifesto – 6525 words
    Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen – 900 words
    Magna Carta – 4478 words
    1689 Bill of Rights – 3810 words

    I suspect poor old Chuka’s ramblings of a mega high bullshit content.

  6. I was just thinking about Tom Watson’s propangandistic ‘response’ to the call for the MPs who resigned from the LP to hold bye-elections – ie that it was “spiteful”. But as we ALL know, if it had been a bunch of MPs from the left of the party who had resigned for some reason, THAT’S exactly what HE would have been doing and saying. The guy is so transparent and disingenuous and duplicitous it beggars belief.

    Funny thing is that I NEVER watch BBC Question these days, and haven’t done so for years, BUT, I just happened to end up watching it about three weeks ago when Chris Leslie was one of the panelists (and had just quit the LP), and the first question just happened to be about whether they – the quitters – should stand down and fight bye-elections. So Fiona Bruce puts it to the LP panelist first (whose name I forget), and he was saying that they SHOULD, and when he finished speaking, at LEAST half the audience clapped in agreement, probably more. So assuming that the audience is representative of the population in general, then in Tom Watson’s fake reality, at least half the population of the country are mean-spirited and spiteful (as opposed to having the right to hold their own opinion on the matter because they believe that’s the fair and honest thing to do).

    And of course it WASN’T just a spur of the moment thought on Bruce’s part to cut in at one point – when the LP guy was responding to the question – and put it to him that Tom Watson had said it was spiteful to call for them to stand down and fight bye elections, and was of course pre-planned. And I have no doubt that she/they thought it would get a loud round of applause when she said it, but it didn’t get a single clap. Talk about trying to manipulate the audience!

    But we all know where SHE is coming from of course! She made that crystal clear a few weeks before when Diane Abbot was on the panel!

  7. This worthwhile analysis omits how little impact the TIGgers are making on the public mind nationally.

    Indeed the difference between their impact and that of the SDP back in the 1980s is stark.

    This makes it all the more important for the Labour Party not to kowtow to them politically. We should encourage other sabotage-minded right wing Labour MPs to defect to them through votes of no confidence in instances where the CLP members are receptive to such.

    1. They made a tactical error in not starting with five – “The Famous Five” would have conferred instant and effortless Centre Stage Status, as of right.
      They were, of course, sensible to avoid “The Secret Seven”, which would have been fatal.
      I’m looking forward to “The Unlucky Thirteen” – Chukka’s Last Stand will be finding someone to blame. As usual.

  8. When is the Guardian subservient to Murdoch’s ‘Sun’?

    Answer : when the Sun contains a bit of ‘antisemitism’ material.

    If you have patience, have a go at reading the latest contribution in The Observer to the non-debate :

    “Antisemitism: failure to censure activist mocks Labour’s ‘zero-tolerance’ stance”

    Now, I have no insight into this story at all, other than what is written. It focuses around (again) an alleged Facebook post by a Labour Party member about some anti-Christian content in the Talmud.

    Again, I know no more than is in the story, but my guess is that the post is repeating a load of old bollocks about obscure religious texts reflecting the age old conflict between two religions that most of us see as just that – a load of irrelevant old bollocks.

    But the blind Observer treats this as a major incident reflecting the ‘institutional antisemitism’ within the Labour Party because the author hasn’t been suspended – although actually he has not been accepted by the relevant panel to stand as a candidate in local elections – which may be a wise decision.

    Perhaps I’m an old-fashioned liberal (in the old sense) who has that old-fashioned belief that there is a distinction between spouting a load of old bollocks about recondite texts like the Bible and the Talmud, and actually having an aggressively hateful attitude to those who hold such texts in high esteem.

    If I say ‘The God of the Old Testament/ Pentateuch is a pretty nasty narcissistic bastard reflecting and reinforcing the politics of ancient power structures’ – am I simultaneously anti-Christian and anti-semitic?

    It seems to me that a sense of proportion and clarity is necessary when defining ‘hate’ crimes. Or is that too obvious?

    Over to you EHRC.

    1. Didn’t you know that quickly glancing at a mural of five bankers – two of which happen to be Jewish – and not realising it’s anti-semitic, is anti-semitic. In other words, there’s no other possible explanation apart from the fact that you hate and despise Jews.

      And surely you realise that if you make a sarcastic comment about a couple of Zionists who go around disrupting pro-Palestinian meetings and, as such, say they have no sense of English irony because of something they said, then THAT is a slur against ALL Jews, and it’s quite evident that you must have a deep hatred for them.

      And if you point out on your website that ‘The 100 richest families in Britain have seen their wealth increase by £55.5 billion since 2010’, then you MUST be alluding to Jews, as such, because, well, you’re an anti-semite and hate them, and THAT proves it.

      Footnote: They haven’t got round to the last one yet, but they’ve started working on it recently – the meme, that is – so it shouldn’t be too long before they DO.

      1. The patent hypocrisy (as well as the sheer dishonesty) is astounding.

        Let’s be clear – the subtext of calling someone ‘antisemitic’ is to align someone with Nazi beliefs and actions.

        But … but … making any such parallel with what the accuser is defending is also ‘antisemitic’.

        Classic heads – I win … tails – you lose.

      2. Allan Howard 10/03/2019 at 11:48 am

        Footnote: They haven’t got round to the last one yet, but they’ve started working on it recently – the meme, that is – so it shouldn’t be too long before they DO.

        Right-wing ideologues are weaponising anti-Semitism to silence criticism of capitalism

        “Rhetoric about the 1 per cent and economic inequality has the same underlying theme [as anti-Semitic tropes] — a small group of very rich people who cleverly manipulate others to defend their interests. So anti-capitalism masks and normalises anti-Semitism”

      3. Excellent article Steve. He turns it inside out!

        I doubt very much that it will have very much resonance – it’s just too asinine for words – and will more-than-likely end up being counter productive, and help open the eyes of many of those they’ve duped and deceived about A/S being rife on the left etc. But I can just see the massive headline on the front page of the Sun in six months time:


      4. Allan, as I understood it Jeremy had responded to a similarly microscopic, low resolution image of the mural online. (FB was it?)
        When I looked at the same image I couldn’t identify the bankers as Jewish or otherwise.
        I could see they were old men and that the figures were drawn as caricatures – that was it.

        The artist had named the bankers and apparently two were Jews and four were Gentiles – assuming it’s not antisemitic to use the term “Gentile” for non-Jews instead of the commonly-used “Goy?”
        Despite some non-Jews apparently feeling insulted or disparaged by the word “Goy” Wikipedia assures us that there’s nothing inherently offensive in it and we shouldn’t be so touchy.
        “Shegetz” is apparently the word commonly used by Jews when they wish to disparage Gentiles – but in a purely non-antiGentile way of course.

  9. When I did a search a bit earlier so as to check how many bankers were depicted in the mural (I knew it was either five or six), the Sunday Times coverage was one of the results at the top, and the extract from the article shown with the result – which was in fact the first paragraph of the article – went as follows:

    Jeremy Corbyn has been forced to apologise after initially defending his apparent support for a mural depicting Jewish bankers playing Monopoly on the backs of the poor.


    I suppose they were hardly going to say: ‘Jeremy Corbyn has been forced to apologise after initially defending his apparent support for a mural depicting two Jewish bankers out of a total of six bankers playing Monopoly on the backs of the poor’. It wouldn’t have had quite the same effect now, would it!

    And I can only assume that had there been a Nigerian and/or a Chinese banker depicted in the mural, Jeremy would have been accused of racism too! And had there been a female banker in the picture……… Phew, thank heavens there wasn’t!

    Anyway, I just read the next paragraph, and noticed that the Times pulled off a further deception. So having led their readers to believe the bankers in the mural were ALL Jewish, they then go on to say the following:

    The artist, Kalen Ockerman, known as Mear One, posted a picture online of his mural on a wall in east London to protest about its imminent removal on October 2 2012. Mr Corbyn, who was a backbench MP at the time, questioned the destruction of the painting following complaints that it was antisemitic.

    He wrote: “Why? You are in good company. Rockerfeller destroyed Diego Viera’s mural because it includes a picture of Lenin.” He was alluding to…..


    They have made it look as if Jeremy KNEW that the mural was being removed because of complaints that it was anti-semitic, and so therefore make it look as if Jeremy is asking “Why?” because he DOESN’T think it’s anti-semitic. But he DIDN’T know the reason it was being removed, and THAT is the reason why he was asking “Why?”

    PS I wonder – if someone did a survey – what percentage of respondents there would be that think and believe the mural only depicted Jewish bankers. I have a feeling it would be quite a lot!

  10. The Evening Standard used quotation marks referring to Umunna’s “vision” 🙂 Sweet.

    ES: “The idea was to “start a national conversation” rather than offer “prescriptive policies”, Mr Umunna wrote.”
    “In the document, Mr Umunna set out six key values for a progressive party: Unity, Reciprocity, Work, Family and Community, Democracy, and Patriotic Internationalism.”

    For “start a national conversation” read “focus group everything and see what sells” – handy when you’re a policy vacuum yourself.
    “Unity” – of what? May and the ERG? You and Corbyn? Leave and remain?
    “Reciprocity” – what for what?
    “Work, Family and Community” and “Democracy” – all against raise your hands please?
    “Patriotic Internationalism” – Jeezus. Fucking lawyers.

    Excellent memory but zero intellect? Study the law my boy, and you’ll do well – just remember never to express your own thoughts and nobody will ever know you’re an idiot.

    1. Is he a brief? Why on earth did I Miss that one. I thought that he was crawling, backstabbing traitor. I had no idea that he was fouler than my darkest imaginings. Is he still in the party? Please don’t say yes. Keep your eyes on the Ms’ there’s something being staged. I’ve warned about them forever. Regards.

  11. An email which has obviously been cobbled together by the anti-Corbyn campaign, has been sent to many members asking them to support Jeremy Corbyn by also supporting or affilliating to the JLM – Jewish Labour Movement. This is a scam, please do not fall for it. You cannot support Jeremy Corbyn and support the JLM at the same time. The JLM is an implacable enemy of Jeremy Corbyn, their aim is to see him destroyed politically.

    This is the new tactic of the anti-Corbyn brigade. They profess unbounded admiration for Corbyn, whilst at the same time plotting to remove him, please be aware of the duplicity of these people.

    We should support our Jewish friends and support Jeremy Corbyn at the same time by affilliating to JVL – Jewish Voice For Labour. They are a group who are genuine in their support of JC and not trying to back stab him like the JLM.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: