Blunkett laughing stock after demanding sacking of Corbyn staff – for position he’s agreed with

Blunkett called for removal of key Corbyn aides for not backing referendum – but has previously strongly rejected calls for another referendum

Comment

Tony Blair’s former Home Secretary David Blunkett has mounted a proxy attack on Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn by calling for the sacking of Corbyn’s closest aides – because they have not committed the party to a new referendum on Brexit.

In a staggeringly dire Guardian article, Blunkett tiresomely ignored the obvious fact that Corbyn’s aides don’t make party policy – and that his own record renders him irrelevant to the modern Labour Party’s status as a genuine political alternative.

But Blunkett also demonstrated a short memory – because just a short time ago he aggressively rejected calls for a new referendum and attacked those he said had failed to understand why people voted to leave the EU:

Blunkett said last August:

To understand…why, if there were to be a second referendum now, I believe that the majority would still vote to leave, is critical if we are to get our democratic system back on track.

Blunket also accused those pushing for another referendum of insulting,

many people I used to represent and utterly miss[ing] the point of why the majority of British people voted the way they did

Sadly, Blunkett has now shown himself all too ready to abandon those same voters in his constituency and elsewhere – all for the sake of participating in a cheap, transparent and coordinated attack on Labour and its leader that just happens to have arisen days before a key by-election.

Blunkett is a relic who has made himself a laughing stock – but the tactics being deployed against Corbyn and his closest allies are just as dated and threadbare.

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.

94 responses to “Blunkett laughing stock after demanding sacking of Corbyn staff – for position he’s agreed with

    • Not enough to justify someone who was aggressively against a further referendum then now attacking people for not agreeing to one. The arguments cited in Blunkett’s article are just as cogent now as then.

    • SteveH

      By defending arch Blairite David Blunkett you have exposed yourself as a traitor to the Labour Party.

      I wouldn’t show your face around here again if I were you.

      • “you have exposed yourself as a traitor”

        The language tells us all that needs to be said about those with two left feet. They fall over them.

      • SteveH is merely a cynical drone for the small hyperactive shit-stirring Troll team constantly disrupting this site with their political white noise. I don’t suppose he is even in the Labour Party, never mind having any loyalty to it. He and his pals will unfortunately be around for a while yet .

      • Ha’Penny – you are not the arbiter of Labour Party loyalty or sincerity.

        Far from it – you’re out on the fringes, rabbiting incessant nonsense. Your favourite overused word is ‘troll’ – a clear mark of inanity from those who have no argument to make.

        When reality refuses to bow to your tiny world of fantasy, the response is always to call reality a liar.

        Get a grip.

  1. Wasn’t he the first on board dummkopf-schmitt’s ‘centre for *ahem* social justice’ IIRR? Blunkett’s to the right of most toerags.

    ‘many people I used to represent’… ‘Used to’ being the key words.

  2. Blunkett and the rest of the Blairite centrists should be calling for a GE it would solve all the problems they keep banging on about. Until they start doing that, they must be seen as the enemy within.

    • Indeed.

      But every man jack of them fear a socialist govt, so they won’t…Even though half of these mouthpieces will still get their £300 per day just for clocking in and won’t need contest their racket….sorry, seat

      • Well, seeing as you think your 83% of 500k labour voters is gonna make all the difference in a 2nd ref…

      • You’re forgetting that most of the Remain Labour support is not the Party.

      • I’m forgetting nothing, plums. You’re ignoring the fact that enough labour supporters voted leave and will do so again, if pressed.

        But they won’t vote labour in a GE if it’s them doing the pressing to get them to vote again…

  3. Strange how the MSM never pick up on these inconsistencies when it’s someone attacking Corbyn. Thanks for the article Skwawky.

  4. Strange how the MSM never pick up on these inconsistencies when it’s someone attacking Corbyn. Well spotted skwawky.

  5. It all seems very coordinated to me . I was on holiday last week so I missed a lot of what was going on. I came back to find Paul Mason had called for Karie Murphy and Seumus Milne to be sacked. He attacked Ian Lavery too.Now Blunkett wants Karie and Seumas sacked as well.

    We also had Alaister Campbell deliberately breaking Labour party rules in the full knowledge this would lead to expulsion . He gets expelled and then immediately we have part of a covertly taped private conversation leaked in which Peter Willsman says in his opinion the Israeli embassy is involved in manufacturing an antisemitism “crisis” in the party.

    This was released to the press and resulted in instant comparisons between the treatment of an alleged Labour ” salwart” Campbell and ” anti Semite” Peter Willsman. Neither are what they are alleged to be. Campbell is a spin doctor who dragged Labour into the gutter and Willsman is just an old fashioned Socialist like myself but as we all know the MSM don’t let the facts stand in the way of a good smear.

    Swawkbox recently reported that a coup is underway. It is now clear that this is the case but the plotters are not quite as stupid as I thought. What they are seeking to do this time is to remove all Corbyn’s support structures – his strategists and NEC backers – and then pounce. It won’t work but they’ll still try.

    I wonder who will be the next target- Len McCluskey or one of the other Trade Union Leaders is my guess.

    I would just add that I hope all high profile Corbyn supporters avoid off the record or private conversations with anybody they can’t trust 100%. Margaret Hodge led the way by covertly taping and then publicising a private conversation with Jeremy. She felt no shame for her underhand tactics and naturally was not criticised for them in the MSM . Where she led others are clearly following.

    • Peter Willsman’s unwisely intemperate recorded comments were apparently said in January – so the recording was sat on for months – ready, as smartboy says, to deploy once the pre-planned post EU elections coup was underway. Let’s not deny the low cunning and ability to plan ahead of the Mandelson/Campbell plotters – or their unlimited financial, and unlimited, on demand, access to the MSM, resources. Ever more important therefore, as smartboy also said, not to fall into the traps set for us by the Right – as unfortunately the always cavalierly outspoken and careless Peter Willsman has done twice now.

      Unlike , smartboy, I fear that the Right may well have found the perfect “policy wedge” over Brexit , and promoting PV and Remain, to split the Jeremy Corbyn member support base, and secure a pro Remain policy which will destroy much of our working class Labour voter base in Labour heartlands. For Mandelson and co the destruction of our Party is just as acceptable now as “winning it back to Right Wing control”. Whether the disloyal PLP Right who will lose their gravy train lifestyle if Labour follows the rest of European social democracy into the political dustbin will be quite so smug if Labour “does a PASOK”, remains to be seen.

      • Pete Willsman did not make any intemperate comments, everything he said was correct and should be being said out loud by the leadership as indicated by Chris Williamson.

        We have been far too quick to appease the Zionists, which is one of the reasons we have got ourselves into this mess.

        It’s advice such as yours from people close to Jeremy which is preventing Labour from fighting back against it’s accusers.

      • “Peter Willsman’s unwisely intemperate recorded comments”

        I think we can diagnose the underminers of Labour credibility … and they aren’t Remainers, even if they are allies of Hodge and Ryan!

      • JP, you seem to have a different take on the antisemitism smears to most of us on here. Any particular reasons?

      • Peter Willsman was having what he believed to be a completely private conversation with someone who in a show of disgusting bad faith taped the conversation and as you say JPenny sat on it until it could be best used to damage Peter and by extension the Left and the Leadership.
        It is a matter of opinion as to whether Peters remarks were unwise and intemperate or not but it must always be remembered that they were not made publicly. Furthermore the person doing the covert recording may well have led Peter on and actively encouraged such comments.

      • “It is a matter of opinion as to whether Peters remarks were unwise”

        Only if the term ‘unwise’ is applied to any combatting of the patent fraud that comprises a high percentage of the ‘anisemitism’ allegations that operate (formally or informally) on behalf of foreign – Israeli – interests.

      • I agree with jpenny and smartboy about the folly of a “high profile” Corbyn supporter going “off the record” to offer such an alarmingly simplistic and fudged summation of the findings of ‘The Lobby’ – to an American Israeli of all things …

        For Willsman to present himself as Corbyn’s “enforcer” (do I detect a certain childish self importance here?) whilst persisting with errors of judgement such as this one, really takes my breath away and by the way, I don’t see Willsman as being in the same category here as Chris W. and many others before him

        As to the response to Jpenny by Simon Dewsbury, I don’t think anyone on this site is under any illusion about the nature of the smear campaign, but that doesn’t mean we have a licence to behave like lemmings.

        And neither do we all have to have “the same take” on this either. As a non Jew, it is very easy for me, philosophically, morally, conceptually to take e.g. Jack T’s position of total opposition to Zionism per se: in essence, that is my default position. However, I can never feel comfortable with the resonances of comments such as this one from Jack:

        ” …If there are Zionists ensconsed within the machinery of the Party as I believe there are, if we do not weed them out … ”

        Though it seems irreconcilable to a non Jew and affiliate member of JVL like myself, there are a great many Jews who will tell you that they are opposed to the occupation and the ceaseless cycle of atrocities perpetrated against the Palestinians – so far so good – but, a percentage of these will also tell you that, to a greater or lesser degree they have identified with, or do identify with aspects of Zionism. There are even Jews who will tell you that they are pro Palestinian Zionists. By extension, there are, presumably, some Jewish “Zionist” members of the Labour party whose version of Zionism supports the official Labour Party position (not mine) on a two state solution. Does this mean that they should be “weeded out”?

        As some have already said, we should be wary of intemperate comment, insensitivity and indeed intemperate language. After all this is exactly the result that those opposed to Corbyn are looking for.

      • paulo 02/06/2019 at 6:35 pm

        Was the evidence in The Lobby not conclusive enough for you? They were caught bang to rights.

        The Labour Party should have drawn a line in the sand and come out straight away and clearly stated that criticising the Israeli State is NOT anti-Semitism.

        It doesn’t matter how you dress it up continuing to advocate a failed policy of capitulation is just nonsense.

      • Of course it was enough for me SteveH; I really don’t need converting thank you. I’m talking about the fudged interpretation, even just the use of “off the record” to a virtual stranger, in the current climate, being “enough for me”. Since you ask though, I don’t recall that 64 rabbis were instructed or organised by the Israeli embassy in the way that Pete describes – always happy to stand corrected.

      • I’m sorry I just don’t understand your argument. The simple fact is that criticising the Israeli State is not anti-Semitism. Nothing Willsman said was anti-Semetic and to agree that it is or even that it could be is capitulation. The Labour Party aught to have made this clear straight away instead of allowing the likes of Faulkner to falsely frame the argument

      • SteveH.

        I don’t know.

        I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt in surmising that you’re not really stupid and that with your perhaps customary sense of mischief, you’re just pretending not to understand. You fail to respond to my comment as a whole and in so doing you may have decontextualised what I’ve said. Actually though, I’m alright with that too; I don’t think that even in its parts my comments about Pete are open to that kind of misinterpretation. You should note, that at no point did I say Willsman, or his comments, are anti semitic, though since you want to give life to this unfortunate incident, careless and juvenile I will stand by.

        I note that you didn’t answer my question.

        If I sense sincerity, in any further comment from you I will try to briefly respond. Otherwise, please accept my apologies.

      • paulo 02/06/2019 at 8:48 pm · ·

        There was no insincerity intended and I am not intentionally being awkward for the sake of it. Maybe I’m just not explaining myself very well.

        The problem as I see it is that there shouldn’t be any issue whatsoever about Willsman criticising the Israeli state whether that criticism is a finely balanced and evidenced argument or a bit clumsy shouldn’t be an issue. I literally can’t think of any other foreign state where criticising that state’s policies or leaders would lead to an accusation of racism. What is so special about Israel that protects it from criticism. Labour’s abject failure on this has been to allow conflation of criticism of the state of Israel and its policies with anti-Semitism. Labour have been on the backfoot with this nonsense right from the start.

        If you really want an answer to your question about the Rabbi well I don’t know (which is the nature of clandestine interference in another state’s politics) but given the evidence revealed in The Lobby (both UK and US versions) why should it be considered in any way racist to speculate on the Israeli embassy having an influence in UK politics.

      • paulo 02/06/2019 at 8:48 pm

        Having done a very quick bit of research. According to the Jewish Chronicle “Contrary to the revolting conspiratorial accusations made today by a senior member of the party, the letter came from within Labour, having been convened by the Jewish Labour Movement.”
        https://www.thejc.com/comment/comment/no-pete-willsman-our-letter-about-labour-antisemitism-1.484989

        The same JLM who’s links to the Israeli embassy were exposed in The Lobby and who’s Executive Director Ella Rose used to work as an Officer at the Israeli Embassy (link posted below).

      • Okay SteveH, thanks for your reply, none of which I disagree with and the evidence that the letter came from within is, of course, no surprise to me.

        My frustration was because you seemed to have the impression that I wasn’t entirely aware of the nature of the witch hunt, the machinations of the JLM and the findings of The Lobby and that I needed persuading – I don’t.

        I will reiterate my rather obvious point. I don’t want PW thrown under a bus and if a few more people become aware of ‘The Lobby’ then that will be something positive. However, just because we are right doesn’t mean we don’t have to choose our words carefully, or give some thought as to when, where and most especially how we express our views; I’ve expressed the same concern about public pronouncements made by members of the shadow cabinet.

        You didn’t comment on what is for me the much more problematic issue of how we talk about Zionism, not that I blame you – a path along a fault line where even angels might fear to tread.

      • paulo – The crucial distinction is between the issue of whether Willsman’s comments were loosely phrased and the issue of him being suspended for nothing that was particularly egregious..

        ‘The Lobby’ certainly gave historical evidence of Israeli complicity in slandering Party members. More recently, the links between the propaganda of the Netanyahu government and the wild accusations voiced by the Board of Deputies and the Jewish Chronicle etc. were plain for all to see. I hardly think that such evidence does other than underpin the essential thrust of Willsman’s statement – we really don’t need to ask ‘How high?’ every time the Israeli government, falsely pretending to represent all Jews, asks the Party to jump.

        We wouldn’t do it for other foreign powers who were occupying others’ territory and operating a policy of discrimination, apartheid and ethnic cleansing.

        The NEC’s subservience really doesn’t do us any favours, particularly since the dangers of the IHRC ‘examples’ were brushed aside.

        The aim of the Hasbara initiative is, of course, to do precisely what is suggested, and inhibit speaking out against Israeli depredations.

    • SB, interesting that Labour List’s weekly survey/ questionnaire today asks whether there should be fresh leadership and deputy leadership elections this year.

      • Doesn’t surprise me – Labour List is a Progress site – just more piling in . No doubt the poll ( of Labour Lists handful of readers) will come back 97% in favour of new elections to bolster up subsequent demands for a constitutional change to allow this.

        It is very hard to link events/issues together when they appear to be happening in isolation and not as part of a preconceived plan but a definite pattern is emerging now so we all know what to expect.Its just a matter of waiting to see who the next target will be. As I said previously my money is on a TU leader

      • I’m afraid that the concept of ‘a coup’ has to be distinguished from incompetent self harm and/or inexperience on the part of the Party hierarchy that plays into the hands of (or bolsters) the right of the PLP. Frightened paranoia isn’t going to make anything better.

        I don’t think that the image of ‘the left’ as whiny victims is a great look.

      • Just to clarify RH -I don’t fear a coup because I know Jeremy still has the support of the membership and any challenger would be face the same humiliating defeat that Owen Smith suffered.
        I do fear however that these plotters – who are Labour in Name Only- will inflict enough damage to ruin our chances of electoral success. We NEED a Corbyn led Labour Government so that we do not have people starving to death , dying from the cold in Winter or committing suicide having been reduced to destitution by a Tory Welfare system designed to inflict as much pain and suffering on the vulnerable as possible.
        Additionally I don’t think any of us on the left have previously been described as ” whiny victims” – we have been called dogs, scum, anti-semites, racists, entryists, Trots, Stalinists, Marxists, thugs, bullies, racists and homophobes to name a few but never “whiny victims”. This is because no matter what kind of abuse we are subjected to the prevailing narrative prevents any of us ever being a victim – whiny or otherwise.

  6. Yet another article from Skwarwkbox attacking those who have changed their mind to accept the reality of the situation. I’m no fan of Blunkett and he may well be an enemy of Corbyn but to try and paint anyone who wants Labour to campaign for a PV as an enemy of Corbyn as Skwawky does, is disgraceful.

    We need to focus on the issue of Brexit and whether any form of Brexit will benefit the Country? Farage, far right Tories and let’s face it some Unions for their own narrow reasons think it will, whilst the majority of economists and Labour Party members know it won’t.

    There are those in our movement who think we should still ‘honour the referendum result’. This is letting our overdeveloped sense of fair play interfere with good judgement. With lies and electoral underhandedness, Farage managed to convince many of those in poorer areas to vote against their own best interests. We know that the best way forward for us all, is not to compromise on some sort of Brexit which will damage our economy, but to have a Labour Government.

    Jeremy Corbyn should now assemble a team, including himself, to go to the areas where Farage stalked and put the case clearly and strongly that it wasn’t the EU which has caused deprevation, it is the very same right wing policies supported by Farage which have been responsible. We have to win back those areas by making sure they hear a Socialist message, delivered firmly and confidently, to overcome the jingoistic rubbish spouted by Farage and the Tory far right.

      • Internal Affairs:

        “JackT, another traitor to the Labour Party and movement.”

        You are probably too dim to realise that one statement shows you up to be a fraud.

      • You’ve got to laugh – 70-80% of Labour Party supporters ‘TRAITORS’!

        Whilst misdirected policy shrinks the vote to 14% in the EU elections.

        You couldn’t make it up as a sequel to ‘The Life of Brian’.

      • RH, some here appear to regard Life of Brian as a hard hitting and very serious documentary.

      • Internal Affairs are you like me – sick to death of people like JackT who couldn’t care less about our party telling Jeremy Corbyn what he should do?
        Jeremy has proved himself to be a very able politician, a statesman who will not flinch even in the face of the most vile personal abuse. He has earned the right to lead this party and that is exactly what he is doing and will continue to do with the full support of us who care about electing a Labour government.

      • “Jeremy has proved himself to be a very able politician”

        I would like to think so – after all, I consistently voted for him in the face of others who said ‘he can’t cut the mustard’.

        But the truth is, he ain’t the Messiah, and he has yet to prove his leadership qualities and make the difficult decisions that will improve Labour’s dire current standing. There is a big difference between being a good contrarian constituency MP with integrity and the leader of a Party.

      • @ RH 02/06/2019 at 4:38 pm:
        ‘…Labour’s dire current standing.’
        If indeed it’s so ‘dire’, why are the Conservatives afraid to call an GE, like they bravely did in ’17 under the same premise? Why has none of the defectors from the Labour Party dared to resign their seats and contest bye-elections as whatever they are now?

      • Stewart960130 02/06/2019 at 8:59 pm · ·

        The Tory’s current standing in the polls is marginally worse than Labour’s. The Tories now have 2 things to fear Corbyn and Farage.

        The only parties riding high in the polls are those with a clear message. The fact that even under these circumstances ChangeUK has bucked the trend and done so badly may give you a clue why they haven’t called any byelections.

    • JackT, if Blunkett has changed his mind in the last few months, then it’s hypocritical of him not to say so in his Guardian article.
      But that would weaken his attack on Corbyn.
      I agree with him on a second vote but give him no credit for his change of mind because of the circumstances in which he’s expressed himself.

      • Simon, I give Blunkett no credit either but if he can get others of his ilk to support a PV, whether they think it will harm Corbyn or not, I can tell them it will only help Corbyn and members who want this settled with a PV.

    • An expert economist is a person who failed to predict the economic crash of 2008. An expert pollster is someone who thought Hilary Clinton would win US election: Cameron & the Remainers wouldn’t lose the Referendum & the Tories would win the last GE by a landslide. Change their mind is code for lying & an MP is a person who promotes their own beliefs & ideologies, but a Labour MP is someone who wants to Remain in the EU & reinstate Tony Blair as leader..

  7. Jeremy Corbyn has said on more than one occasion that the party would be in the hands of its members under his leadership. If he is any doubt about where Labour members are across the UK, he should put the question to them in a one-member-one-vote ballot. Give our members across the UK the power to decide the biggest issue of our generation.

    We have to choose whether UK Labour is for a Brexit deal or for Remain, and confirm our support for a referendum to settle the issue. We cannot wait until autumn to decide. We can’t wait any longer for the leadership to reach the same conclusion that the membership reached long ago. We can’t wait for UK Labour to catch up with Welsh Labour.

    • I and hundreds of thousands of other members have got Corbyn’s back, while you are trying to stab him in the back.

      You’ll have to get through us to get to him you backstabbing traitor.

      Go for it. You haven’t got a hope in hell.

      • My apologies I forgot to attribute my quote.

        Perhaps you should email the author Vaughan Gething, the Welsh Assembly Member for Cardiff South and Penarth, currently serving as Cabinet Secretary for Health and appraise him of your views.

  8. Having watched Channel 4’s 7 o’clock News this week, as well as Question Time & listened to Any Questions/Answers & Pienaar’s Politics this morning, how can anyone keep a straight face & say MSM, especially public service broadcasting, doesn’t campaign for ‘Remain’ & a 2nd Referendum? ‘Lies & electoral underhandedness’ are the hallmarks of most politicians & most MPs are Remainers. There is no level playing field when it comes to Media Debate, big business will not allow it.
    I still have a problem with the characterisation of people who live in poorer areas as thick & gullible, especially by bourgeois Remainers who believe they have a monopoly on intelligence, while the primitive working classes can only function on an emotional level. The one thing that most working class families have in abundance is integrity, something the bourgeois hypocrites fail to comprehend.

    • I see that a ‘freelance investigative journalist’ has spent a huge amount of time trawling back through our candidate for Peterborough’s social media history (back at least 5 years and probably more) and has found 2 whole posts (sorry one post and a ‘like’) which are not antisemitic but criticise IsraelI influence and policies. They are of course being touted by MSM as somehow evidence that she hates jews.
      He has for some reason waited until the week of the byelection to tell us about this scoop.
      He has in the past ‘outed’ Richard Burgon for calling Zionism an enemy of peace.
      He seems to have an agenda.

    • “how can anyone keep a straight face & say MSM, especially public service broadcasting, doesn’t campaign for ‘Remain’ ”

      Very easily. The sense of persecuted self-righteousness – not to say childish paranoia – by True BLeavers is a wonder to behold. The vast majority of the MSM treated ‘Leave’ as their campaign, and the rest has been incredibly respectful for a broken-backed idea that blew any credibility a long time ago.

      • ‘Persecuted self righteousness & childish paranoia’……I see the barbs are back out. Mirror Mirror on the wall, who is the biggest self righteous childish paranoid of them all?

    • Steve, now that sensible people, including those you claim are being insulted, are at last coming around to the view that a PV is the only way forward, you are being carried away by your imagination. Take heart, you are not alone, Skwawky is also panicking.

      • Not imagination Jack, pure emotion……an application of the values taught me by my grandmother from the poorer areas that when you give your word, you are honour bound to keep it is something most MPs, (you know the ones that voted for Article 50) have reneged upon. B4 Betrayal there was trust, I am too old to be so naive.

      • Steve, if you give your word when you tell someone you are going to shoot them because it is good for them, you are NOT honour bound to go through with it. Your reasoning is laudable but far too simplistic.

      • Yes – my family ‘from the poorer areas’ also taught that perpetuating daft mistakes without apologising and putting the mistake right – shows a character weakness.

      • What’s this ‘daft mistake’ you speak of, o enlightened one?

      • Voting for a noddy idea called ‘Brexit’. What else, O stuck, less than enlightened one.

      • Ah, so we from the ‘poorer areas’ ARE all stupid then?!

        Thanks for confirming that. How about you come to a few local alehouses with me and tell the locals – plenty of them intelligent people – just how you qualify your view?

        Tell them they made a ‘daft mistake’ and then double down on that by telling them they’re exacerbating their ‘daft mistake’ by not kowtowing to your tantrums and demands…

        ‘Not apologising and not putting the mistake right’…Just WHO the fuck do think you are?

        If your family had indeed lived in the ‘poorer areas’ they’d have been made extinct a looong time ago with that attitude.

        You’re full of shit.

      • Your fictions, Sticky suggest that you might have a go at the Booker.

        You really do make it up as you go along. Are you really that obtuse or just suffering from perceptual difficulties?

        To try to simplify : your depiction of poorer people and the working class is an insult to the intelligence of the same who don’t at all conform to your caricature. I know, because my family on both sides came from the working class – and were poor. But they weren’t at all gullible.

        Thus we have the simple fact that Labour support in that group voted predominantly for ‘Remain’ – not the Tory Brexit. Stop trying to fictionalise people to suit your own prejudices.

        ” a few local alehouses”

        What sort of poncy pastiche language is that, O scion of the Workers? Let alone a sampling of a wide and disparate social group?

        Talk about distanced type-casting!

  9. Perhaps if Labour had been clearer in supporting a Non-Neo Liberal Brexit (unlike the Neo-Liberal Brexit Party & Tory Neo-Liberal Brexit and Lib Dem Neo-Liberal Remain) we could have perhaps attracted a significant number of the working class Brexit Party votes and some of those who stayed at home in a vote of only 37% – the Brexit Party offered a simple choice we didn’t really.
    But perhaps Leadership is also about recognising that at times the majority are simply wrong and some suggest a significant number are not applying a socialist analysis when wishing to remain part of a Neo-Liberal Supranational Structure which primarily serves capital.
    Others on here make a good point that the Right may have found an issue to try to drive a wedge between Jeremy and a significant number of Lefties?
    You can almost imagine the flip charts on Mandelson/Blairs wall with strategy and planning with times and the names of the allocated key players and organisations.
    They perhaps want their Crumbs For Working People and Cosy Careerist Parliamentary Club back.
    So with JC it’s a transformation of society as an example to other countries in the World or without it’s Pasok (and continuing misery for millions) ?
    Members have to think critically and apply socialist analysis plus in my view accept the referendum result and move on.

    • Oh Gawd! Not more myths about the ‘working class Leave voters’ – aka the conservative support?

      This guff has been comprehensively disproved. Working class Labour voters were majority ‘Remain’ (I’m pleased to say). Leave voters were mainly reasonably-off southern conservatives with a chip and delusion on the shoulder.

      • rh again giving us the benefit of his in-depth forensic deconstruction of the voting demographics of everyone in the country…Including the ones that didn’t vote but voted remain because leave didn’t (and weren’t so pathetic as to) claim them.

        We asked Peter Snow for his thoughts on rh’s findings

        ”So, he’s still putting the rh into aRseHole.”.

      • To reflect one of your favourite quotes ” RH which planet are you on?” ‘Leave voters were mainly reasonably-off southern conservatives’………..presumably B4 moving North into well over 100 Labour Leave constituencies. Such logic has finally made one eyes blind.

      • Sorry – just the facts. I know they’re uncomfortable for the religious brethren of Lexit – but that’s the actual analysis rathe than wishful thinking. Leavers are predominantly Conservatives – which is why such a large number of Labour voters aren’t voting for a Brexit Labour Party.

        Look at the actual evidence.

        Tough. Shedding dearly beloved delusions always is.

        Meanwhile Toffee’s still stuck.

      • As an addendum, I guess I owe you enlightenment regarding those facts. This is the analysis by Danny Dorling :

        ” … most people who voted Leave – by absolute numbers – lived in southern England. Furthermore, of all those who voted Leave, 59 per cent were middle class (often labelled asA,B or C1) and only 41 per cent were working class (labelled C2,D or E). Theproportion of Leave voters who were of the lowest two social classes (D and E) was just 24 per cent …

        … Middle class Leave voters were crucial to the final result.”

        Sorry about the reality check. If you’re not aware of the credibility of Danny Dorling, you’re probably not someone to pontificate about real world data, as opposed to just blowing smoke.

      • Leavers are predominantly Conservatives – which is why such a large number of Labour voters aren’t voting for a Brexit Labour Party.

        Look at the actual evidence.

        PROVIDE ‘actual evidence’ then, knobhead.

      • Oh dear, Sticky One – your final line indicates the puddle-like depth of your intellect.

        I have provided evidence – the analysis by a leading academic social geographer, who also, incidentally, happens to be entirely sympathetic to the objectives of the left in terms of social policy.

        Doh!

        (There will be literacy classes in your neighbourhood).

      • Yeah I think David McNiven’s running them. A snip at £37.50 ph or whatever it was…

  10. Bazza spot on, only in politics do you get the exam questions in advance,
    Whether its enemy within or pillocks in MSM you know in advance what they are going to throw at you,
    It might be good for the roses but it’s no good for the millions crying out for a Labour government
    My theory is too many lack the guts for the fight, at very least get retaliation in first,
    Brexit and Anti Semitism, same solution, just say NO
    Sorry but we dont believe there is a problem with either, show us your evidence and we will show you ours,
    Attack MSM who do not take into account Jewish Community and Leavers who support JC and Labour
    Attack is best form of defence and MSM are just plain rude so dont be afraid to say so, that’s rubbish, contemptible, nonsense, stop stirring the pot, talk over them if they talk over you,
    If you believe it’s not hard to go offensive Enjoy the job it’s for a very good cause

  11. The terms of Reference for the 2016 Referendum were agreed by all politicians from every Party. David Cameron used £9 million of taxpayer’s money to post a ‘glossy’ into every home in the country, explaining it & what his policies were. He was totally convinced (so too was Farage) that the PM was going to win. What could go wrong as MSM; Big Business/CBI; Educational Institutions, all the bourgeois organisations & political parties had backed him &………….they lost……..hubris.

    Now the same old trick of keep asking the question until you get the answer you want. It’s a lie. A cheap & nasty betrayal that will destroy trust in the electoral system forever. Jeremy Corbyn appears to be aware of the problem, but the Old Watsonians stab him with their steely knives. You have get behind somebody B4 you can…………..

    • Steve, your memory appears to be fading. The brochure produced by Cameron gave both sides of the story not just Remain. It was a requirement of the Electoral Commission. Just like many Leavers, you have fallen for another of Farage’s myths.

      • Comrade Jack,
        please forgive me, how could I be so cynical? A Tory gov’t brochure had to be impartial? Strange also, that David Cameron admitted @ the time that Remain was Tory gov’t policy & he had the right to state his case despite opposition questions from Dennis Skinner. Impartiality a requirement of the Electoral Commission? ……….stop it……….are you serious?

        Nothing wrong with my memory, I am reading the document right now.

  12. He didn’t stumble into the Labour Party.
    He was a very determined, hard right entryist.
    His membership is now fully incompatible – obviously – and should be immediately rescinded.

  13. ” betrayal ”

    Sorry, Steve – the use of such vocabulary shows desperate nostalgia for a broken idea rather than rational argument.

    Where would we be if every political decision, every election, every bad choice was etched in stone for perpetuity? … and given a fake authority or authenticity that it doesn’t warrant?

    It’s a concept that would support all sorts of antiquated and disproved ideology.

    • Oh don’t forget the bit in the article that states “I doubt she has a leg to stand on”

    • Hahahaha!!! She’ll be lucky to still have a job after this and serves her right, too.

      Stick to the numbers, sweet tits!

  14. Proving libel is very difficult. I am not legally qualified but it is my understanding that the legal requirements are well established and in this case place the onus on the plaintiff Rachel to prove on the balance of probabilities that her remark was innocent and no reasonable person would interpret it as it has been interpreted. Furthermore as stated in the linked article she will have demonstrate that as a result of the accusations arising out of the misinterpretation of her remark she suffered a damages as a result of the alleged libel, in this case a damages worth £50,000.
    I also understand that proof on the balance of probabilities requires that previous behaviour, language, affiliations etc is taken into account when the evidence is weighed.
    This is a very ordinary case. Here is no scope for a landmark decision. It will not be a litmus test for future libel cases though it may encourage or deter others from issuing proceedings depending on the outcome.

    • If one presumes that this is the case that they think will have the best chance of success then it doesn’t bode well for any other cases that Rachel and her team might have waiting in the wings.
      I wonder will the Labour Party be providing legal support for Laura Murrey.

      • I was surprised Rachel who has become an very vocal and outspoken critic of the party and the leadership decided to instigate legal action over Laura’s response to a comment she had made. The comment is clearly open to interpretation and I don’t fancy Rachel’s chances of proving on the balance of probabilities that Laura misinterpreted her and consequently libeled her. Rachel obviously has access to legal advice and clearly has been advised differently or alternatively she may have her own reasons for pursuing the case.
        I doubt very much that Laura will be receiving legal support from the party. The comments complained of were not made by her in the course of her work but on her private twitter account.

      • Then we need to find out how Laura is being supported,
        this is a good case considering RR’s previous,
        more than happy to contribute

      • Doug I wholeheartedly agree with the sentiments behind your post but while I would be more than happy to donate to a go fund me appeal I think it would be inappropriate for the party to DIRECTLY fund Laura. In any event if Rachel loses the case Laura’s costs will be covered – perhaps the party could offer Laura a loan on that basis?

  15. Point of Order

    1.9 million more pupils in good or outstanding schools since 2010

    First thing to work out is by how much has the school population increased and when was the last time these schools were inspected, particularly Academy schools who act as a law unto themselves
    More big fat cheap and nasty fake news

  16. This is a competition that all members can play. No prizes it’s for fun.
    1. How many chins has that Watson bloke got.
    2. How many faces do most backbenchers have.
    3. Who thinks that we will leave.

    Testing stuff but do your best. Best wishes skwawkies.

  17. Dont go mad but you can get 4/1 on Labour to win in Peterborough, that is a healthy price in all of the circumstances surrounding this contest, if Labour vote holds and Brexit party face reality check, that they have no policies other than ‘my dads bigger than your dad’

Leave a Reply