Labour peer Chakrabarti told Today programme case was to be reviewed and that outcome would depend on Campbell’s ‘future intentions’. Neither was correct
Shadow Attorney General Shami Chakrabarti told Radio 4’s Today programme this morning that the expulsion of former Blair spin-doctor Alastair Campbell was to be ‘reviewed’ and that Campbell might be re-admitted to the party depending on his “future intentions” – essentially that he could be allowed back in if he promised not to do it again.
The interview has been seized upon by most mainstream news outlets.
Chakrabarti said she hoped would be resolved quickly – and claimed that this is ‘normally’ the process in such cases:
However, neither is correct.
The SKWAWKBOX understands from Labour sources that Alastair Campbell, like any member, can try to appeal the decision but no separate ‘review’ of the case is planned – and that there is ‘no appetite’ for reversing the decision among the relevant officials.
What’s more, there is no ‘normal’ opportunity for members expelled for supporting another party to be re-admitted based on promises of ‘future intentions’. Appeals can challenge evidence of the facts on which the expulsion took place, but what an ex-member might promise to do, or not do, in future is irrelevant.
The only ‘normal’ opportunity for such an expelled ex-member to return to the party is after the five-year exclusion period has elapsed – and at that point it is subject to the discretion of the NEC.
The BBC interviewer raised the red herring of comparisons to cases involving members accused of antisemitism. Such cases have to be properly investigated – and are not normally characterised by the accused going onto national media to declare what s/he did, as Campbell did.
The interviewer also raised the case of Andrew Fisher, claiming that he was not expelled after expressing support for a rival candidate because Fisher worked for Jeremy Corbyn. Fisher’s case was in 2014 and he did not start working for Corbyn until late 2015.
SKWAWKBOX view:
The interview was yet another classic case of BBC misrepresentation – and Shami Chakrabarti seems to have been tripped up by the interviewer. In any event, she missed the mark on Labour’s rules and procedures regarding ‘auto-exclusion’.
Unless Alastair Campbell can somehow demonstrate that he wasn’t the Alastair Campbell who made his now-infamous media comments, he broke Labour’s rules in a way that means he has no place in the Party for at least the next five years.
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.
Chakrabarti really needs to be more careful about what she says, because Watson and his mates will now all be demanding the review that she promised.
Yes, but it may not have been unintentional.
Chakrabarti has always been useless, nervous, and permanently apologetic, in interviews. For a Shadow Attorney General she needs to grasp our Party rules before spouting off in Radio ambushes. But then with her recent PV supporting comments, Chakrabarti’s motives for misrepresenting the Campbell case has to be suspect – just helping to keep it in the media eye – just as that serial plotter, Campbell intended . And of course this allows the hostile media to raise again that old red herring of Andrew Fisher. And the anti-Semitism issue of course. Anyone even slightly aware of the Party Rules and the detail of the Campbell case should have been capable of putting up a robust case. Not the useless, apologetic , Chakrabarti though .
Before achieving her immenseness I distinctly remember her answer on being asked about her politics- I think she was in that PIE and PEN SUPPORT GROUP- was that she felt sympathetic to the Lib-Dems. Says it all, doesn’t it. Regards
The Labour Party won’t stop being a shambles until somebody – preferably Jeremy Corbyn – puts his foot down publicly and sends a strong message to ALL members.
A great start would be to call a press conference and reel off half a dozen names of the most senior, long-term, serious offenders. And dump them in line with breaches of the rule book.
When the outrage arrives, another six. Then another six.
And on, and on, and on if necessary until we have a firm deterrent to treacherous conduct taking shape.
No safe space.
Socialists, recognising a leader, will be cheering JC to the rafters and the old power base can be re-invigorated.
JC seems to want to be nice to everybody. Maybe he lacks that killer instinct to remove those preying on him.
But you can’t appease witch-hunters!
Wirral In It Together 30/05/2019 at 5:30 pm
I doubt JC or many in the wider electorate will share your enthusiasm for what sounds like an autocratic Stalinist state..
Thanks, but no thanks!
Wirral
I like your style!
Marty
Absolutely spot on. He lacks the killer instinct all right…
Some great ideas here …. if you aren’ t too concerned about the fundamental problem of electoral success.
What does it profit a man if he gains the whole world, but loses his soul? (JC, circa 30AD)
You’re advocating an essentially Blairite philosophy. And we all know how that turned out…!
timfrom 31/05/2019 at 10:56 am
Global wealth is approximately US$317,000,000,000,000
Global GDP is approximately
US$84,800,000,000
Your point being?
Timfrom 31/05/2019 at 3:00 pm · ·
It is a simplistic representation of the ‘the whole world’s’ wealth and income, or the cost of a ‘sole’ (if you believe that such a thing exists). 😊
Thompson’s might be a rip-off with what they charge for putting a rubber sole on your shoe but they don’t charge THAT much!
I can find no other “humour” in your remark. Still, it takes all sorts…
timfrom 31/05/2019 at 3:35 pm
🤷♂️
Exactly my reaction!
Yes and Labour members were told a bit back not to discuss an individual case (of a great Leftie MP under investigation who in my opinion would make a great Deputy to JC) but C discusses an individual.
Is it one rule for those at the top and another for members?
C has only been a Labour member a few years and perhaps needs to do a lot more reading?
like
“The interviewer also raised the case of Andrew Fisher, claiming that he was not expelled after expressing support for a rival candidate because Fisher worked for Jeremy Corbyn. Fisher’s case was in 2014 and he did not start working for Corbyn until late 2015.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Fisher_(political_activist)
“After Jeremy Corbyn became Leader of the Labour Party in September 2015, Fisher was appointed as an adviser. In November 2015, he was suspended from the Labour Party following complaints from other Labour party members. In a statement, Corbyn stated that he still had full confidence in Fisher. His suspension was lifted by the Labour National Executive Committee later in the month, and he was issued with a warning.”
What is the purpose of your irrelevant post ? Is it meant to contradict Skwawkbox’s correct account ? It doesn’t of course, you simpleton. Andrew Fisher merely expressed a preference for a non Labour candidate online in 2014, (BEFORE Jeremy changed the nature of the Labour Party by becoming Leader), before starting to work for Jeremy in 2015 . The Right trawled through Jeremy’s team’s social media accounts looking for dirt and found this weak excuse for a complaint against Andrew in 2015. The case was as Skwawkbox described it. There was no case to answer. Campbell announced across the mass media that he had voted Lib Dem, and encouraged other Labour Party members to do so. What a tool of the Labour Right and Tory media you are , Troll.
jpenney 30/05/2019 at 3:00 pm
No contradiction was intended or given I posted the above simply to provide clarification to what SB had said because I thought it was unclear, For goodness sake what is your problem, as you yourself have said my quote does not directly contradict what SB said. It simply provides additional detail and context
I would argue that its relevance has been confirmed by yourself, otherwise why on earth would you have felt the need to write such a detailed explanation yourself.
The “clarification” was anything but, it raised more questions than it answered, which, I guess, was the object. Anyone using Wikipedia for “clarification” must live in an eternal fog.
lundiel 30/05/2019 at 4:04 pm
“The “clarification” was anything but, it raised more questions than it answered, ”
I am sorry you had difficulty in understanding the Wikipedia article. Personally I thought it was quite clear. If it did raise additional questions in your mind then surely that’s a good thing, don’t you want to be fully informed. Being a mushroom really isn’t a good look.
Why the aversion to Wikipedia it’s a good first source for further investigation. Did you not notice that the article in Wiki contained several references to other sources that confirmed its content.
Shami often isn’t a good performer in interviews, so I’ll be charitable. But as a very experienced lawyer she ought to know what the rules say. Clearly some in the party are again running scared of the media.
And who fed the media the incorrect information about Fisher?
What is going to happen to Clarke and all the others? I don’t care what side of Brexit they’re on, flouting the rules deliberately is not acceptable.
Forget the obsessions, and the double-think regarding Fisher.
The important point is that, were every member who voted for another party in the Euro elections to be expelled, the Party would be pretty anorexic. More importantly, the ritual morris dancing, belting all and sundry with pigs’ bladders, will probably have a negative effect on the less attached who have previously supported Labour, but went to the Grenns and LibDems last week.
More sensible to devote attention to keeping people on board, and winning others over, rather than simply belly-aching.
Do you think that the life-long Burnley supporter will come around and be a good boy. He’s Redhands assassin, he’ll never change.
As said – it’s just a minor irrelevancy in the face of some critical failures.
RH
As you well know, no-one has ever been expelled for voting for a rival candidate. That simply was not the issue.
Trolling again?
Any excuse to attack Labour, including lies and misrepresentation.
Typical LibDem diversion.
heenan73 30/05/2019 at 4:14 pm
Well if that [?] isn’t the issue perhaps you would be kind enough to explain what is so we can all have a clear understanding of what the issue is.
By all means disagree. It’s what grown-up Labour supporters defend, rather than wanting to hear just repetitions of the same viewpoint.
But, FFS, stop this endless playground chant about ‘trolling’ – it’s not big and it’s not certainly not clever.
I speak as I find.
And trust me, I can spot a lying anti Labour troll at 1000 paces.
As can most loyal members.
Sorry to intrude upon your treasured self-deception, but you obviously can’t.
I’m afraid it’s not in your gift to define ”loyal members” to suit your prejudices.
RH, there’s a difference between just voting for another party and broadcasting it.
There’s now a choice for the party between backing down and enforcing the rules. I favour the latter. The media will criticise whatever happens.
I agree about the difference, Simon. Trouble is there’s a pretty murky area in the middle – and we are living in peculiar times with the EU issue overlaying other policy matters, not coinciding in any coherent way and casing a rift between the majority of members and the stated policy.
Overlaying all that are fundamental divisions flowing from the Blair era.
The electoral result is what we have seen – and that needs a bit of creative thinking. When I see someone like Chakrabati being slagged off – even if she hasn’t performed well – on the same day that the real enemy has got Willsman suspended – I begin to despair of the willingness to simply walk into man-traps and think it a mark of doctrinal rectitude.
What the hell have internal party disciplinary matters to do with Shami? Nothing whatsoever and you must know that so you chose to make your inaccurate statement for your own purposes.
Oops, badly written by me: Should read: “She knew that and chose to make her inaccurate statement for her own purposes.”
Flip-flopping like this goes down badly with the electorate. It makes Labour look weak. That tends to be toxic with voters (consider Labour under Ed Miliband, the Democrats with John Kerry).
If we cannot manage our own party without flip-flopping on issues like this not-terribly-important expulsion, then the electorate are quite reasonably going to harbour doubts about Labour running the country.
I suspect that is the intention, that this is a power play by the right to see just how far they can intimidate the party.
Chakrabarti is just another problem for Labour.
Oh FFS!!!! Stop dreaming and indulging in displacement activity. The main problem for Labour is a cock-up of a policy over Brexit and the inept support around Corbyn. He hasn’t got the experience and depth around in a team that he needs to combat a hostile environment.
That’s why 14%.
Some people seem to want the Labour Party to end up as useless as the SWP and like irrelevant self-pleasuring groups.
It is not and was not a cock-up when Watson and Chuka fully supported it in preventing May pushing through her terrible deal. It is only recently that the Blairites and Right have turned it into a weapon for their own purposes. It is so blatantly obvious it barely needs stating.
A hostile environment, as in the MSM, which he has no control over of course, and who have misrepresented him and his policies at every turn.
Why didn’t she just say he’s out automatically, nothing to do with anyone or anybody ,that’s the rules and he knew what he was doing? She knows nothing about other cases as that’s not her brief ,so don’t answer about other cases. Ffs its getting confusing what’s going on.
As Jpenny says I would question her motives, she is a lawyer so knows exactly what she is doing .Is there anyone at the top table fighting for a socialist government of just plants ,careerist and wreckers.
No review is necessary, he broke the rules knowing that would happen, and he is out for the next five years or we reinstate every expelled member since 2016 as they were so say expelled under the same rule book.
What is it about Labour ladies in ermine. They suddenly become foul-mouthed, sly, treacherous and media pleasing? Could it be all the perks, people crawling and groveling to them? Maybe they haven’t changed at all. We have been led a merry dance but we were only ever wall flowers. On to Peterborough. Regards skwakies.
This is not the first time Liberty has served up a fake socialist, just look at Harriet Harman and Patricia Hewitt
Never did trust chakrabati. This confirms it. Part of the neo-lib establishment.
This is slightly off topic, but then the plotters DID conspire to bring anti-semitism into the Campbell episode, and make a meal of it of course.
Anyway, I couldn’t help thinking what an amazing coincidence it was that the EHRC should just happen to pop up again at more-or-less exactly the same time as the expulsion of Alastair Campbell – ie a couple of days ago. I mean WHAT an amazing coincidence (having last popped up in March). Anyhow, I was just checking out how the media had reported the latest development re the EHRC and, as such, learnt by chance that it was set up by the Blair government in 2006/2007, which doesn’t give me much confidence at ALL in its independence as such.
As I say, what an amazing coincidence that the EHRC should announce on Tuesday – at the same time the Alastair Campbell episode/expulsion was headline news all over the media – that it had decided to carry out a formal investigation in to the Labour Party:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/may/28/equality-body-launches-investigation-of-labour-antisemitism-claims
And when I did a search to find an article (about the latest EHRC development) to post with my above comment (for anyone who wasn’t aware of it), I just happened to come across the following article as well, and will, as such, be now checking to see how much coverage it got by the MSM:
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2019/may/28/watchdog-urged-to-launch-inquiry-into-tory-islamophobia
Tom Watson, Emma Thornberry, even John McDonnell … Danny is right about the effect on an electorate and it’s not just Chakraborty’ latest effort that is contributing to the current shambles.
Let union leaders differ; let party members differ, but the Shadow cabinet and deputy leader, should be speaking with one voice, irrespective of their individual views. Fortunately, most people I talk to can perceive Watson for what he is and his behaviour can even induce sympathy for Corbyn as leader. However, the current impression is that there are as many conflicting views on policy as there are members of the shadow team and that the Leadership, therefore, is weak. I understand that policies and positions have to take account of the political ground as it shifts, but that doesn’t mean policy positions and media statements should be a free for all.
I find I am spending too much time trying to explain away, even apologise, for the current dissonance.
As Ronald Reagan said “If you’e explaining you’re losing”.
Fully agree. If Corbyn had the political strength he should have as leader he would have immediately sacked Thornberry when she contradicted party policy. I spoke with her at my regional conference in 2016 about Brexit and she said: “We are leaving, but not very far.” What happened to that? McDonnell has repeatedly shown himself to lack a spine under onslaught. As for Watson! There is a place in hell for that bastard.
With respect RH that’s at least twice on this thread you’ve criticised the leadership top team around Corbyn and that is your prerogative . Now how about some constructive rather than destructive criticism , along with some positive suggestions for who you think would be ideal replacements and for whom ?
Bear in mind that the trustworthy LW talent pool he has to chose from is very small.Further compounded by the highly impracticable procedure preventing CLPS from deselecting the ” bastards ” in the PLP and replacing them with better Socialists , that actually represent the vast majority of the membership now in place in the Labour Party .
This might actually aid and inform the debate don’t you think ?
My above comment , wrongly tagged to Rita , should be below in Steve H thread ,
Rob – I don’t have specific individuals in mind – and in the end, it is the policy advice that counts. That has, objectively been err… ”somewhat lacking” in terms of strategic success.
I also do think that it is the leader’s job to get a working team together – I’ve never favoured the elected shadow cabinet model.
In terms of specifics – Labour clearly has to shift towards Remain – probably by unambiguously supporting a proper vote rather than limping along behind the last farce.
It is now utterly clear that electoral success following existing policy is now based on hope rather than rational expectation.
I see so much displacement activity rather than grappling with the hard fact of a shrinking electoral base.
That is what has to change.
It seems some did not understand what I was saying. Corbyn does not have the power he should have not through any failing by him but because he is so undermined by the PLP 5th column and most of all his Deputy.
paulo 30/05/2019 at 5:10 pm
“As Ronald Reagan said “If you’e explaining you’re losing”.”
Does that also apply to JC spending 20 minutes on Marr ‘clarifying’ what his policy was on a CV.
Ah, Reagan, that great thinker! Marr has his agenda, blame him not JC.
Rita 30/05/2019 at 5:25 pm
Have your read the transcript of the Marr – Corbyn interview? http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/19051901.pdf
Hard talk :
A major problem is the lack of structure and expertise around the leadership.
That is partly the result of the antagonistic elements within PLP. But it’s not the major issue. There is simply no credible management structure at the top of the Party.
One critical problem that has followed from that is that Corbyn has not had the support and environment within which to develop wider leadership skills.
Yet again an attack on Corbyn, this time simply for trying to answer a non friendly journalists questions.
And he wonders why I call him a troll.
heenan73 31/05/2019 at 1:11 am
FFS – Grow UP.
The evidence is there, in the transcript for all to see. I’m afraid you banging on about hostile interviewers just doesn’t cut it Corbyn as the leader of the opposition should be able to cope with the likes of Marr.
The problem had little to do with either Corbyn or Marr, the problem was the crap message that JC was trying to peddle.
Well said on both counts Rita. I’ve just read the “statement” by Corbyn which “reasserts” policy – good and not a moment too soon.
If Campbell is allowed back in mass resignations will follow by members who do support the party as it will show that Labour does not treated all members fairly and equally. Any Labour members voting for non-affiliated parties should be expelled.
Fully agree with Rob’s comments above. Sadly, yet another typically patronising and strangely tautological conclusion from RH about developing ‘wider leadership skills”. What does that actually mean – that he would be doing swimmingly if only he took more notice of Thornberry et al? Initially, You steered vaguely in the direction of truth RH, and then you seem to have scuppered yourself, as usual.
Rita nails it for me when she comments: “if Corbyn had the political strength he should have as leader…”. What he “should have” (and indeed deserves) is quite different from what he actually has. It’s shadow cabinet skills and maturity that are sadly lacking here, the deficit of the LW pool, that Rob refers to, not a lack of experience on Corbyn’s part.
paulo 30/05/2019 at 10:44 pm
“What does that actually mean – that he would be doing swimmingly if only he took more notice of Thornberry et al?
It would almost certainly have helped if Corbyn had taken more notice of the majority of both Labour’s membership and voters
Election Maps UK
European Election Voting Intention IF Labour ‘Became Pro Remain and Promised an in/out 2nd Referendum’:
LAB: 36% (+12)
BXP: 30% (-2)
CON: 11% (=)
LDM: 9% (-6)
NAT: 4% (=)
CHUK: 3% (-1)
UKIP: 3% (+1)
GRN: 2% (-4)
Via @ComRes, 17 May.
https://twitter.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/1130900865995485184
This rather assumes that Corbyn has your child like faith in opinion polls, and chooses to ignore a conference decision.
Luckily for Labour supporters, neither applies.
heenan73 31/05/2019 at 1:14 am
Grow up
Steveh I know you put great faith in the opinion polls, but heenan73 has a valid point IMO , you know as well as I do that policy was made by us , the membership via our democraticly selected delegates, and Corbyn is following that policy. If he didn’t then that would rather make a mockery of the entire principle of having a Conference and it would become nothing more than a show rather like it did under Tony Blair’s years.
Paulo – I sympathize with your protective view of Corbyn. But he is has had little experience of the role of Party leader, which is very different from those of a good, radical constituency MP
Part of the required skills is the ability to form a team that works. Given that he has had to deal with antagonism within the PLP and an unprecedented assault from the media, he hasn’t yet gained the breadth of skills needed – or the polling results necessary.
Accepting the differences in time, a good comparison is with Attlee, who also had to hold together a far from unified PLP and cabinet and had similar personal qualities.
I want him to succeed – but at the moment he’s not doing so. Simply carrying on regardless won’t cut the mustard.
Ever wondered if RH and SH is same person? Am I only person on here who seeing their name/s quickly scrolls down.
The political moron/s have nothing to say but some of you actually engage with the political simpleton/s – ignore them.
As my Gran used to say: “Life’s too short son, always walk around turds!”
Oh brilliant post by Alan Howard on the excellent Jewish Voice For Labour supported research, glad my union affiliated to them – disseminate this – get the evidence out to counter the Right Propaganda!
Bazza 30/05/2019 at 11:04 pm
“Ever wondered if RH and SH is same person? “
No, I can honestly say that the thought has never ever occurred to me.
Your desperation is showing.
It’s yet more confirmation of the desperation among the isolated minority who support the Lexit myths – fantasy replaces rational debate, because there is no argument that hasn’t been blown apart.
Thus the frantic opposition to putting the question back to the electorate.
Well said, Bazza ! Whether a number of the constant , day-long, every day, four Trolls on here are really one person (this often is the case with organised, paid for, Trolling) , they all merely regurgitate the Mandelson/Campbell script to the letter. I hope for their sakes they are being paid to sit at their computers all day churning out this political white noise, because if not they have no lives at all ! As you say, Bazza, best to ignore the white noise Troll chatter. I too usually just scroll straight past their predictable disruptive nonsense .
Some very scary poll results have just been released.
Britain Elects
@britainelects
Westminster voting intention:
LDem: 24% (+6)
Brex: 22% (+4)
Con: 19% (-5)
Lab: 19% (-5)
Grn: 8% (+2)
via @YouGov
Chgs. w/ 17 May
2:18 PM – 30 May 2019
https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1134207549249654786
If the above is anything to go by a GE would see us being the junior partners in a coalition
I wouldn’t pay it too much attention Steve…. it’s a yougov poll (for The Times) – ie the most untrustworthy of them ALL!
Allan Howard 31/05/2019 at 12:43 am
I really don’t think that just ignoring it in the vein hope that it will go away will help.
I was merely stating a fact Steve.
Allan Howard 31/05/2019 at 12:58 am
“I was merely stating a fact Steve.
I’m sorry Allan but you but it is undeniable that you are stating your opinion. Unfortunately a substantial proportion of the people who took part in this opinion poll disagree with you.
Making policy according to opinion polls was Tony Blair’s trademark, and the result of changing policy on a weekly basis destroyed any faith the electorate had left after Iraq.
Luckily for Labour supporters, Corbyn lets conference decide policy, and applies it consistently and honestly.
Unlike, of course, your pals the LibDems.
heenan73 31/05/2019 at 1:20 am
Surely you are intelligent enough to know you are talking crap. Is Brexshit more important to you than a Labour government.
The majority of both Labour’s membership and voters will consider themselves lucky when Jeremy Corbyn listens to them. Hopefully he’ll wake up before it is too late. You seem to have forgotten that your own views are only shared by a small proportion of Labour supporters.
Apologies Steve….. I just realised that we must be talking cross-purposes. What I was referring to is that yougov consistently has the LP five or six points lower than other polls (which I’ve mentioned on a number of occasions during the past six months or so).
That said, I have little doubt that a few of the polling organisations, at the very least, are part of the Establishment’s armoury to use – when needs be, and ONLY when needs be – to influence public opinion for THEIR own ends, and I have no doubt whatsoever that yougov is one of them.
Remember that edition of BBC QT with Diane Abbott? THAT was a yougov poll, and it was completely out of kilter with other polls at the time, but the vast majority of viewers wouldn’t have known that, and Oakeshott and Fiona Bruce et al KNEW it.
Allan Howard 31/05/2019 at 3:58 am
…… and the ComRes poll above?
https://skwawkbox.org/2019/05/30/chakrabarti-tells-r4-campbell-case-under-review-can-come-back-in-if-promises-to-be-good-neither-was-correct-audio/#comment-108047
Obviously, YouGov indicators need to be treated with caution in terms of precise figures.
But that’s not the point – they are simply part of a wider pattern of information that heads in the same direction.
Essentially – Labour’s position is dire, even making allowances for the anomalous 14 % in the EU election.
Wasting energy in moaning about various PLP members doesn’t attack the central problem of a failing strategy. Even if every sceptic (of good or bad faith) were expelled from the Party, the hard reality wouldn’t change. You’d simply have a reflection of the current dire state of the Tory membership.
I’m a gambler, anyone putting money on BP or LD’s at next GE, should be referred to gamcare
On JC, when Pantomime Dame screamed at him your a feck8ng Anti Semite and a Racist, his response was
I’m sorry you feel like that
That’s the man we want to lead this country,
In the meantime there is a hatchet job to be done on enemies within, take out anyone of Blair, Mandelson, Watson, Hodge and the others will follow, will save a lot of feckery at next GE
I’d suggest we pray there isn’t an election too soon. If it comes AFTER we’ve left the EU, Farage’s mob will be redundant and far less likely to have reason to still exist, never mind contest the next election.
If it happens before, however, I fear all our achievements be wiped out…
boris or nige it will not matter a jot, no one voted for no deal or to take us off a cliff, if anything it will be crystal clear the consequences of such fuckwittery
equally who wants to support red tory snowflake neverenders,
if we can make Scotland a sensible offer, it will be a landslide Labour victory
trust them
time to stand up for ourselves
make the standard statement and party policy, embellish with we are the only party with gold standard complaints procedure and this is the safest country in Europe for the jewish community thanks to JC and Labour movement
then very clearly rebuff Pete Wilsman statement as anti semitic and state there is clear evidence of Israeli involvement, its a widely spread policy to accuse people who challenge their conduct as anti semitic
then to make it clear how serious we are expel Pantomime Dame for making vexatious claim of anti Semitism
you have stand up to these disgusting allegations,
what do our friends in JVL say
Woodman’s suspension is yet another example of Corbyn’s spinelessness in the face of the Israel Lobby.
This will be his downfall and very soon if he’s not able to put his foot down HARD!
The writing is now on the wall…
Wilsman! Bloody spellcheck!
“time to stand up for ourselves”
I agree – but not in the way you think.
When Willsman gets by the suspended by the NEC for expressing a well-evidenced opinion about the links to the hasbara intitiative,
One can have nothing but contempt for the machinery of the Party, its lack of coherence and lack of courage.The Party is heading for the rocks with this latest spasm of cowardice.
I note (and I’m not casting blame – I understand why ) that Sqwawkbox has now been intimidated into not allowing comments.
This on the day that even the BBC had an item vividly illustrating the racist inhumanity of Israel in relation to the inhibitions on medical treatment of children from Gaza.
Why on earth would Labour abandon its ‘successful’ and ‘effective’ policy of capitulation to The Lobby.
The problem is that running scared resolves nothing – as has been seen in the continuing scam attacks.
No doubt, after the ineptness revealed in ‘The Lobby’, the Israeli embassy will be a bit more careful – but the title ‘Labour Friends of Israel’ should set alarm bells ringing. Who in a progressive socialist party would wish to ‘befriend’ an apartheid regime so vividly exposed in the BBC’s item this morning?
… and we know the historical links between some of the main protagonists and Israeli interests. We also know the falsity of the allegations about several who have already been suspended or expelled
So what has Willsman done that warrants suspension?
Answer : nothing except question the veracity of a lot of complaints.
What the Board of Deputies nexus (aka the Israel apologists) are doing is inexcusable in the way that they are exploiting the jewish community – and quite possibly ramping up real antisemitism by constantly crying ‘wolf’.
RH 31/05/2019 at 1:52 pm
Have a listen to Lord Faulkner on BBC R4 World at One. ( Charlie starts at 13:11hrs). I reckon we should count ourselves lucky that the ECHR are doing the investigation instead of him.
Oops – ECHR >>> EHRC
I’m afraid that I have little optimism left when, after all the noise about various individuals voting for a Remain candidate, the governing body of the Party suspends a good, solid member for highlighting the bleedin’ obvious (fully documented) and the Party chair votes against the whip with no sanction – preferring to support the Tories.
This Party is heading for a continuing crash unless there’s a bit more consistency, clarity and alignment with supporters.
Interestingly, when I try to leave a comment on the actual thread relating to Willsman posted today, I get a 403 Permission Denied message. Is it something I said?!
Anyone else having this problem?
Update.
The thread is now closed. I’m surprised there was one at all, given Skwawk’s decision not to have comments on AS-related posts…
At least we can be thankful that we’ve been spared from Eddie Izzard.
Amen to that !
Rather a different analysis of current voting trends in this new very large (10,000) participant , highly detailed opinion poll just out from Ashcroft ! The poll reports that nationwide the support for Leave has actually gone UP, and the majority of abstainers in the recent 37% turnout EU elections were working class Leavers – many of whom will be in Labour’s heartlands. This must be set against the very small sample, and nowadays heavily anti Labour skewed, YouGov polling. Labour is being seduced into adopting an electorally suicidal pro PV and Remain policy position on the basis of bogus polling and fanciful extrapolations of the small turnout EU election. https://morningstaronline.co.uk/article/f/time-labour-stand-unequivocally-working-class?fbclid=IwAR3wfATJLqM_Cgo4bTCqOI3_yCJ-Iho7tcMWmmzQ1a3NzNNn50UpnZz-kh8#.XPFWetyoTNw.facebook
Wishful thinking. I note that you’re quoting a ‘Leave’ gloss rather than the actual Ashcroft data, and then picking other polling that suits. The Morning Star does biased opinion pieces, just like the Graun.
Actually – only 14% of the Brexit Party vote came from 2017 Labour voters doing a walkabout , as opposed to 2/3rds from the Tories.
and …
“The biggest single chunk of Lib Dem support in the European elections came from 2017 Labour voters (37%) …
[Of 2017 Labour voters]…More than one in five (22%) went to the Lib Dems, 17% switched to the Greens, and 13% went to the Brexit Party.
Work out the balance – it isn’t very balanced.
Quod erat …
About as reliable analysis for a ‘Leave’ policy as Trump’s analysis of EU negotiations and his backing Johnson for the Tory leadership!
As I’ve said about the local elections here… LibDems+Greens = 150% of the Labour vote.
If you want a different *opinion* (as opposed to a partial retelling of the facts) – try this :
https://www.thecanary.co/opinion/2019/05/29/corbyn-supporting-labour-members-like-me-have-tried-to-make-brexit-work-but-its-time-to-dump-it-completely/