Analysis comment

Video: McDonnell on claims he wants Corbyn to sack aides: “myth, rubbish, invention” by drunk journos

Shadow Chancellor unequivocal on mainstream fake news – and suggests Westminster ‘lobby’ journalists have been drinking too much free parliamentary wine
John McDonnell on this morning’s Marr

A clutch of smears against Jeremy Corbyn and the Labour Party by Rupert Murdoch’s Sunday Times has become a familiar weekend routine – and attacks on Corbyn’s closest supporters have been an almost daily event as centrist media attempt to isolate him.

This weekend’s version of the ploy has taken the form of claims that Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell and Shadow Home Secretary Diane Abbott have told Corbyn that he must sack his chief of staff Karie Murphy and his communications head Seumas Milne. Attacks on Milne and Murphy have been a regular feature in the so-called ‘mainstream’ media for some weeks.

But when McDonnell appeared on the BBC’s Marr programme this morning, he went far further than a denial of the claims.

Instead, McDonnell turned on the Westminster journalists behind attacks on Corbyn and his allies, accusing them of inventing stories under the influence of too much alcohol and dismissing their ‘journalism’ as “myth” and “rubbish”:

McDonnell also stated that he did not believe Diane Abbott had said anything of the sort and said that he and Corbyn, friends for four decades, would continue to have each other’s back – and that Corbyn will not only lead Labour into the next general election, but will win it:

The same Murdoch media also claimed this morning that Labour was sending lawyers’ letters to supposed ‘whistleblowers’ to try to silence them ahead of a BBC Panorama programme. As the SKWAWKBOX revealed, the letter used as evidence for this claim was around three months old – but the date had been blacked out before publication.


The smell of MSM desperation is in the air, with expectation of a general election mounting. Divide and conquer is a well-worn Establishment tactic.

Well done John McDonnell for treating it with the contempt it deserves.

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. Can he please also start referring in interviews to the motives behind the antisemitism smears. Maybe refer to the evidence in The Lobby?
    On the BBC World at one social media posts disputing the allegations were displayed as evidence of anti-semitism. We really might be back in Salem in the 1600s.

    1. Simon, your point is well made. We should not be afraid to say EXACTLY WHY the A/S smears are false and why they are being made. If we or our spokespeople don’t do it at every chance we get on the media, we leave a vacuum for the corrupt media and Jeremy’s enemies within the Party to fill.

      1. Absolutely agree – we should also mention the disproportionately high number of Jewish people who were nominated by the party and elected to parliament by labour party supporters in 2017.This is the best answer to the allegation we are”institutionally” antisemetic.
        WE are a population of approx 65 million and there are 650 seats in parliament – one seat per 100,000 people. There are approx a quarter of a million people in the population who are are Jewish so proportionately they could expect to hold 3 seats across the parties yet in 2017 our allegedly institutionally antisemetic party nominated, funded, campaigned for and elected a high number of Jewish MPs e.g. Margaret Hodge, Ian Austin Ivan Lewis Alex Sobell Fabian Hamilton, Ruth Smeeth Louise Ellman Luciana Berger Ed Milliband a former leader.There may be others.
        This needs to be pointed out in my opinion as it completely undermines the allegation that we are institutionally anti semetic.

      2. ..absolutely. And whenever a journalist makes accusations that ‘ the Jewish community have deserted Labour over antisemitism’, we should point out that the collapse in what support we had came in 2015, at a time when we had a Jewish party leader.

    2. I see that Matthew Ancona has some advice for Labour:

      “This prompted a further thought: how easy it would be to construct a pretty decent cabinet from Labour’s backbenches: Jess Phillips, Seema Malhotra, Owen Smith, Stephen Kinnock, Gloria De Piero, Angela Eagle and David Lammy for a start. Then add in a handful of existing frontbenchers – Tom Watson, Keir Starmer – and, before you knew it, you’d have the basis of an electable Labour government with a fighting chance of uniting the country and governing it competently.”

      I must confess, I did not realise he wrote satirical articles.

  2. The leadership is wise to withdraw oxygen from the anti-Semitism attacks by appearing conciliatory and unprovocative. This forces accusers who are politically motivated onto the front foot which invariably leaves them looking foolish and absurd.

    1. Wise by appearing conciliatory and unprovocative?

      Don’t know about that, but I DO know they appear shit scared of the next accusation and will deal with it in a manner favourable to the jewish community – regardless of the evidence (A-la Marc, Jackie, Mike etc etc)

      ”Forces accusers onto the front foot and makes them look foolish and absurd” ?

      Well hodge,watson, ellman, screeching etc all appear happy to carry on undaunted and unhindered, I’d even go as far as to say the press are even grateful to them for it…

      1. “favourable to the jewish community”
        “favourable to the ‘jewish community’, as unrepresentative groups of Tory inspired, islamophobic racists are wont to call themselves.”
        If we define Jews as we do Anglicans, Catholics and Muslims to include not only practitioners of particular rites but those with roots in such communities, we are likely to discover that those objecting to ‘anti semitism’ in the Labour party are either imperialists who regard Israel as a white man’s colony-a villa in the jungle is one famous boast- or enemies of socialist policies determined to protect neo-liberal capitalism.
        Most of them, like Murdoch and his editors, have nothing whatever to do with Judaism.

      2. bevin

        “we are likely to discover that those objecting to ‘anti semitism’ in the Labour party are either imperialists who regard Israel as a white man’s colony-a villa in the jungle is one famous boast- or enemies of socialist policies determined to protect neo-liberal capitalism”.

      3. Hodge looks desperate and is easily neutered by pointing out her track record therefore the damage she can do is limited solely to centrist and right electors and even then, dubious.

        Watson regularly gets mocked and is irrelevant, and equally has a dodgy track record. Holds the position of deputy hostage as his last chink of relevance.

        The others are bit players. But here’s the thing, the two media stars in this are overreaching and bore the royal ear.

    2. DavidS,

      There is nothing wise in appeasing those who cannot be appeased, you confront them with fact-based evidence and fight them every inch of ground.

      The Labour Party has appeased the Israeli Lobby for far too long and the definition of Antisemitism is broadened by the day in order to smear all on the Left – we warned, and warned and warned what would happen and so it is – this is where appeasing the Israeli Lobby leads too.

      1. The difficulty is with a hostile media appealling to a customer base who stops reading at the headline and never fact checks especially if it appeals to their prejudice. These form part of the electorate and the gatekeepers are selective, slow to correct mistruths and won’t unlock the gates.

        The other difficulty is non politically motivated claims of anti-semitism. Labour shouldn’t throw those under the bus or risk doing so.

        When no one is interested in fact nor evidence (more accurately hardly anyone) and you can spot the yawning trap the leadership being boxed in is doing the wise thing.

        It’s the outriders of the movement, immune from macarthyism who should be speaking up loudly, with fact and evidence and not falling into the trap of being easily dismissed as cranks.

      2. Christopher – You are absolutely right.

        Anyone who thinks that concessions and appeasment is a counter-strategy really hasn’t been paying attention.

        Remember the totally incoherent concession over the IHRA confused definition and ‘examples’? Now – That’s gone really well, hasn’t it?

        Concede the language and you concede the argument.

    3. DavidS. I believe it is very unwise not to combat the smears because I know from personal door to door canvassing that the public, from whom we get our votes, are being influenced. I also know we have tried the ‘just ignore them’ tactic for years and where has it got us? Answer, nowhere, they’ve taken advantage of our lack of response.

      I believe the best way to combat the false accusations is to turn them back on to the Israelis and highlight their atrocities, of which there are many. If the smearers know that each time they produce a smear it will rebound on to Israel, Israel will call the dogs off, even more so if we respond by linking to BDS and promoting it.

      1. I’m quite careful to differentiate between the leadership and the party activists.

  3. The media are clearly desperate and must know of an impending election, there has been non stop smears for months now.

  4. Some Labour friends have been telling me the Right in Labour are trying to stop branches discussing a certian person and siting the letter from the Gen Sec saying members can’t discuss individual cases (and are getting Regional Offices to back them up saying it can’t be discussed).
    But aren’t Labour members reporting a political misdemeanour?
    Didn’t 118 members (who happen to be MPs and peers) break this ruling by naming an individual and discussing this case publicly via an open letter which put this into the public domain?
    The latest wheese from the Right (because they know they are in the WRONG) is to say it was ok because at the time they did this it had been resolved?
    But the General Sectetary’s letter did not say you could discuss individual cases only before panels not when people has been cleared IT SAID YOU DO NOT DISCUSS INDIVIDUAL CASES!

  5. But the GS letter did not say you could NOT discuss individual cases before a panel and only when they had been resolved IT SAID YOU DO NOT DISCUSS INDIVIDUAL CASES FULL STOP!

  6. It’s way to one sided, vexatious claimant’s are asbestos and getting away with murder, the list of decent members kicked out for SFA is as long as your arm
    Not convinced John McDonnell is the bad cop we need,
    Do we get a decision this Tuesday on CW, let’s see which they go

  7. Israel spends $billions trolling blogs like this planting false information. We know because we have at least one resident troll the ever reliable bad penney who turns up to protect his paymasters whenever an alert goes off in Zionist central control.

  8. As I have said repeatedly, it’s a no-win situation when it comes to the ‘anti-semitism’ black op smear campaign, and I really don’t understand why some people on here can’t accept it and, as such, keep accusing the leadership of appeasing the smearers – when there are numerous examples of people who DID speak out – Pete Willsman and Chris Williamson being two good examples – who are then themselves accused of being anti-semitic precisely because they did.

    It wouldn’t matter if JC’s LP had the best people in the world working in the press office countering the smears and bogus allegations IF the MSM just completely ignore their responses. We all know, for example, that what Ken Livingstone said was true, and that he was alluding to an historical fact, and the MSM know it TOO, so it wouldn’t have made the slightest bit of difference if ‘Labour’ had responded because THEY – the saboteurs/smearers – are hardly going to expose their own lies/smears.

    And as I keep saying, it’s up to US – at the grassroots level – to get the truth out there and expose the Establishment and their propaganda machine for the fascists that they are.

    1. Allan, there is one very important point you failed to recognise and it is who was it who actually sanctioned Livingston, Willsman, Walker, Wadsworth, Williamson et al? It wasn’t our enemies.

      It was the Labour Party and it’s only by throwing our own friends and supporters under the bus that keeps the smears alive. If from the Leadership down we chose not to appease the Lobby and instead fought back, we could neutralise their affect and at the same time show the public who vote for us that the accusations against us are fake, planned and enabled by the Israeli Lobby using false definitions of anti-Semitism specifically cobbled together for the purpose.

      We didn’t do ourselves any favours by shooting ourselves in the foot when we accepted the IHRA definition in the first place. This whole A/S farago has been totally mishandled from the start.

      1. Jack, you are STILL missing the point! As for accepting the IHRA definition, the LP was blackmailed into accepting it by the saboteurs and the totally corrupt MSM, because to NOT do so would be proof as far as the plotters were concerned, of the deep-rooted anti-semitism that plagues the party, and the MSM was full of just THAT for weeks at the time.

        In view of the ongoing reality of the situation, your argument about the LP throwing people under the bus etc is just complete nonsense. WHAT did the LP – ie the LP leadership – DO exactly regards “throwing them under the bus”? And HOW do “we” fight back when the MSM is complicit in the black op smear campaign! It’s one thing responding and denying smears such as the health claims by civil servants and the one in the above article, but as I KEEP saying, if anyone says the anti-semitism claims are down to a smear campaign, they are themselves accused of anti-semitism and conspiracy theories etc, as DOZENS of people HAVE been. Would you like me to post links to a few hundred such articles in the MSM and the Jewish newspapers during the course of the past three years or more?

      2. As for “sanctioning” those falsely accused of anti-semitism, WHAT happens when the LP DOESN’T sanction them? Yes, JC is accused of being soft on anti-semitism, or words to that effect. I mean look what happened with Chris Williamson when he was reinstated – ie he WASN’T sanctioned. What further proof do you need that we – and JC – are in a no-win situation? And we’re in a no-win situation because the MSM is owned and/or controlled by our enemies – ie their ‘reach’ is multiple times greater than the alternative media such as Skwawkbox and the Canary or Craig Murray etc, etc.

      3. Allan, I’m afraid it is you who are not getting it, and I wonder if you are not getting it on purpose!

        Do you think that any of those I’ve mentioned are ACTUALLY guilty of A/S? If you do, I doubt your credibility. We should not have given in to The Lobby. What sort of a Party are we which is disloyal to its friends and rewards its enemies?

        I don’t think ANY of them are the slightest bit guilty of A/S and by proper argument against the Zionist lobby within our own Party we can show it. By sacrificing them we have accepted the accusations against them, let them down dreadfully, appeased our enemy and invited more smears and false accusations which will not stop until we fight back with determination.

      4. OK Jack, you have now convinced me beyond any shadow of a doubt that YOU are a troll! You KNOW that I don’t think that any of them are guilty of anti-semitism – never-mind the fact that I state that very fact in the FIRST sentence of my 12.00am post AND have said as much in hundreds of posts in the past (and as recently as YESTERDAY) – so why would you say such a thing unless you’re a lying little shill.

        Your post is just one Big Lie, but hows about you explain exactly how we’re going to “fight back with determination”. Could you elaborate? And perhaps you could explain WHY it is that the victims of the smear campaign feel it necessary to apologise (for having caused offence to anyone) when THEY know of course that they haven’t said anything remotely anti-semitic. Could it be because they know that the saboteurs and the MSM would double down and attack them AGAIN for not doing so – ie attack them again if they DIDN’T.

        As I said Jack, please elaborate as to just HOW, precisely, the LP could “fight back with determination” against the A/S smears. Funny isn’t it how you never DO elaborate as to how it could be done AND feign to pretend that the corrupt and complicit MSM who are disseminating the smears are gonna give any space/air-time to the truth and, in effect, expose their own lies and fabrication and distortions. And all the “determination” in the world isn’t gonna change THAT.

        And I couldbn’t help but notice how you avoided saying anything in respect of the point I made about Chris Williamson? Oh, right, but if “we” fight back with “determination” then he will be reinstated. Yeah, of course, Jack. What complete and utter baloney! And propaganda baloney at that!

      5. Here, in effect, is an example of what I was saying about ‘reach’ in an earlier post:

        Several days ago Jeremy Hunt made his despicable and vile comment about Jeremy Corbyn and the Holocaust, and shortly thereafter someone set up a petition on demanding that Hunt apologise to JC (which I have linked to in a couple of threads on SB in the past couple of days), and yet, at the time of writing, barely 20,000 people have signed the petition. The Morning Star had a link to the petition (that’s where I initially came across it), and I’m sure that other people have linked to it on other blogs and in Comments sections, and yet the petition is struggling to get to even 20,000 people, and it just exemplifies our lack of reach. And once-upon-a-time, the Daily Mirror and the Guardian and the Indy would have covered the story AND expressed similar outrage towards Hunt for making such an abhorrent comment AND more-than-likely mentioned the petition AND linked to it. But times have changed!

      6. Allan, you are getting extremely worked up for no good reason and the fact that you are calling me a troll shows very poor judgement on your part. As for being a troll, it’s you rather than me who advocates rolling over and giving in to the Zionists. Your over reaction to what I said is typical of someone who cannot produce a valid reason to substantiate their argument and is then juvenile enough to respond with insults.

        If you don’t think Chris Williamson and the others are guilty of antisemitism, why, just because our enemies are ruthless, should we abandon them? Your solution of throwing them to the wolves has patently failed. You and those who chose this crazy tactic appear not to know or recognise the nature of the enemy. If you did, you would accept that appeasement is futile and just invites further attacks as has been evident.

        Your point about a hiding to nothing is ridiculous, some of us are getting a hiding now PRECISELY because we ARE doing NOTHING.

        Are you really trying to tell me that there is no one in our Party wise enough to be able to argue againt the false smears and put it directly to the public in interviews? I can see however that with people like you proposing and pressing for appeasement, that option has been adopted and continues, even though it is obvious it has failed. This is what has led me to doubt your credibility.

    2. There are more than a few shills on Skwawkbox, and YOU are obviously one of them Jack. That said, I have to acknowledge that you are very good – ie very good at distortion, that is. In my initial post at 9.26pm, I started by saying:

      ‘As I have said repeatedly, it’s a no-win situation when it comes to the ‘anti-semitism’ black op smear campaign……’

      I also mention Ken Livingstone, and how we (on the left) all know that he was alluding to an historical fact, as I have done on numerous occasions (and I could hardly be saying THAT, could I Jack, if I somehow thought or believed that what Ken said DID amount to anti-semitism). And at another point I say how the MSM are “hardly going to expose their own lies/smears”, and finish off by saying that it’s up to the grass-roots “to get the truth out there”. And THAT’S just in ONE relatively short post!

      In my next post at 11.30pm I refer to the saboteurs and the corrupt MSM and the plotters, and THAT’S just in the first paragraph! So what does Jack then say at the beginning of his 12.37am post:

      ‘Do you think that any of those I’ve mentioned are ACTUALLY guilty of A/S? If you do, I doubt your credibility.’

      And THAT of course tells you EVERYTHING you need to know about Jack’s credibility. AND his integrity…….. the complete lack of it, that is. I’m not gonna bother responding to the rest of his propaganda B/S, accept to just reiterate my main point. In his 2.35am post, Jack says the following, to which I have commented in brackets on each point:

      If you don’t think Chris Williamson and the others are guilty of antisemitism, why, just because our enemies are ruthless, should we abandon them? [who is this ‘we’ Jack, and do you include yourself amongst them and, if not, why do you use the term ‘we’, and if you mean the leadership, then why don’t you just say so?] Your solution of throwing them to the wolves has patently failed. [since when did something that ISN’T a solution come to be referred to as a solution; the point *I* am making Jack – and you know it – is that there IS no solution, because it’s a no-win situation, as I have said repeatedly in the past] You and those who chose this crazy tactic [it isn’t a tactic Jack, it’s a no-win situation] appear not to know or recognise the nature of the enemy. If you did, you would accept that appeasement is futile and just invites further attacks as has been evident. [oh, right, so if ‘we’ – whoever THAT’S supposed to be – fought back, then the saboteurs/plotters would throw in the towel would they!]

      I have now concluded – as a consequence of Jack’s posts – that he understands the situation JC and the left find themselves in during the course of the past three years or more AND that it is a no-win situation, but his objective is to subtly create antagonism towards JC, but disguises the fact by referring continually to ‘we’. A black propagandist at work!

    3. And just one last point:

      In an earlier post I said how the MSM has multiple times the reach of the left-wing blogs, but omitted to mention what that actually amounts to. Well even if the left-wing news sites amounted to 500,000 people, which I very much doubt, the MSM probably amounts to ten million, at the very least, and probably a lot more (and then there are right-wing blogs AND local papers all over the country that dissemble the false narrative as well – ie the Establishments false and phony narrative). In other words, the false narrative is reaching at LEAST twenty times more people than the outlets which expose their lies and distortions and smears, and THAT’S a conservative estimate. As Malcolm X said:

      “The media’s the most powerful entity on earth. They have the power to make the innocent guilty and to make the guilty innocent, and that’s power. Because they control the minds of the masses.”

      And THEY – the media – are hardly going to give the innocent, who THEY framed in the first place, an opportunity to show that they are innocent and, in so doing, expose THEMSELVES – the media – of being guilty of framing them. To do so would be to sabotage their (own) agenda, and THAT’S obviously why it’s never gonna happen. And THAT’S why WE have to do it, by putting leaflets together and putting them through peoples doors, because it ain’t gonna happen any other way. And anyone that tells you so is either deliberately misleading you OR doesn’t understand the reality of the situation – ie the predicament JC and the leadership are in. The MSM KNOW, for example, that JC was referring to a couple of hard-right Zionist trouble-makers who go around disrupting pro-Palestinian events when he said what he said about not understanding English irony, but the MSM propagandists ‘transformed’ it into a slur against the WHOLE of the Jewish community. And THAT’S what we’re dealing with! Totally poisonous and malignant minds.

      1. Allan, your attempts to justify and recover from what is a cowards position makes me smile. You hold what can only be described as a Judas position regarding Chris Williamson and our other friends who have been penalised.

        On one hand you say they are innocent and on the other you agree they should be sacrificed.

        With friends like you who needs enemies!

    4. Jack, you obviously have a talent for distorting AND inventing B/S. It’s actually laughable because it’s so pathetic. There are dozens of people who because they spoke out in support of those who have been falsely accused of A/S were THEMSELVES accused of A/S. But you know that anyway, but you’ll keep spewing your falsehoods so as to turn people against Jeremy, and as long as you DO, I’ll keep drawing people to the attention of your real agenda.

      Anyway, at least we now know for certain that you’re a devious and duplicitous little troll.

      1. Allan before that hole you’re digging for yourself gets any deeper please could you give me an example of my ‘falsehoods’. Have a rest first before you go into fantasy mode.

  9. I’m confident the EHRC will find no institutional antisemitism so I think we should very publicly press them to complete their investigations and publish their conclusions – or at least interim conclusions – as soon as possible and this year without fail.
    The Tories will privately press them for delay so they can continue exploiting AS in the run-up to the next election and that could cost us dear.
    We need to broadcast “The Lobby” far and wide.
    We need to ask the JVL and every other friendly Jewish voice to spread the truth as far and as often as they’re able – they’re our best and bravest advocates and we’ll owe them even more than we do already.
    Members of craft unions within the BBC might have evidence of relevant corruption beyond the editorial bias we’ve come to expect.
    The BBC broadcasting The Lobby would be ideal but they won’t do it willingly.

  10. 2 out of 3 for JM but 2nd PV (when we actually had one) snatches defeat from the jaws of victory.
    Also means the end of the Corbyn Dream & we lose, condemning millions to continued poverty, housing need, austerity etc.
    You can have a 2nd PV or end the above, you can’t have both – YOU CHOOSE!
    Fortunately JM’s saving grace was saying “But Jeremy is wiser than me” quite true comrade.
    Get with the programme!

    1. Bazza if you think that the referendum has any credibility left after what has since transpired, I’m afraid it is that point of view, supported by some unions, which will condemn Labour to defeat, no shadow of doubt about it. The ONLY way forward is to ask the electorate to confirm their choice.

      1. Utter crap, as usual, JackT , Troll creature. It is perfectly possible that a Second Referendum would in fact re-affirm a majority for Leave – despite the Guardianista class’s endless bogus weaponised micro pollings to affirm their own small smug bubble of pro EU obsession.

        The very large mass of poorer voters who are never reached by the pollsters, and were responsible for the utter shock to pollsters and the Guardianista middle class privileged alike in 2016 (and in the shock 2017 General election hung Parliament outcome – after predictions of a circa 100 plus Tory majority ) will come out again in droves to affirm that Leave vote. And will the middle class pro EU fanatics accept a second Leave victory ? Of course not .

        Contempt and indifference towards the poorer working class Leave voter infests not only the Lib Dems and the middle class journalist class , but too many in our overwhelmingly middle class Party too . Those who have had their lives ruined by unlimited labour supply and EU -enforced neoliberalism generally are simply to be written off as “knuckle-dragging stupid racists and fascists” , by a privileged middle class which dominates the media and all political parties , and who , so far, have benefitted hugely from unlimited labour supply and resulting low inflation and ever-higher property prices, and easy access to those European ski slopes and cronyism-procured EU bureaucracy jobs.

      2. jpenney. “It is perfectly possible that a Second Referendum would in fact re-affirm a majority for Leave”

        Correct and if it did, now that the electorate have more information to go on, I would not agree but would go along with it. That is true democracy, not the democracy of a con man like Farage.

        Jack T – troll creature 🙂

    2. Indeed, Bazza. I detect that your normal bouncy optimism is fading somewhat, comrade. Me too. And it isn’t just the “a second Referendum – with Remain as a choice on the ballot” John McDonnell (and Barry , and Diane) is now promoting. It is a Second Referendum, with Labour supporting REMAIN ! So we can consider the entire circa 50 seats in our solidly Leave-supporting Labour heartlands lost ALREADY, prior to a snap General Election even being called ! Because, which traditional Labour-voting Leave supporter in the Midlands, North, or Wales, could now believe that a Labour Government would actually “respect the 2016 Referendum result” , if even Jeremy’s inner comrades circle is coming out with this pro EU crap ?

      I think the constant pressure of Labour’s neoliberal unconditionally pro EU Right, and the astonishingly entirely non-socialist Left Liberal politics of the bulk of our supposed “Corbynista” , overwhelmingly middle class membership, has now achieved the final break with our lower paid, unskilled and semi-skilled working class voter base, that Blairism has always worked towards, from its endless parachuting into working class constituencies of Right Wing neoliberal opportunist middle class careerist MPs, to its undeclared second key plank of the Blair/Brown Labour government’s economic strategy (alongside letting the banking sector operate without any real oversight or restraint) , ie, unlimited labour supply. It is the unlimited , EU-sourced, labour supply of the last 20 years in particular, which has , with Thatcher’s legal shackles left in place , produced unlimited labour surpluses in most sectors, and hence hobbled the trades unions, kept real wages down, and profits and dividends UP. The unskilled and semi-skilled working class, that has, so far, been the main victim of unlimited labour supply were always doomed to eventually despair of Labour politics based on this cynical neoliberal economics , and the brutal administration of post 2010 Tory Austerity by Labour Councils too. “Corbynism” ie, a new Left direction for Labour, which since 2015 has bucked the otherwise universal trend of electoral collapse of social democracy across Europe, has now almost certainly proved incapable of facing up to its historic task – and the shambolic Old Labour left (like the dreadful old back room manoeuvrer, Jon Lansman , but also McDonnell and Abbott), combined with the naïve Left Liberal , identity politics-infested, middle class politics of most of the post 2015 “Corbyn Wave” influx, have , in their betrayal of the clear Brexit Leave promise in our 2017 Manifesto, now completed that, long in the making, final rupture with our traditional working class base.

      This is a tragedy of historic significance, far more important than the many, many, craven betrayals of the Labour Left in previous eras, eg, in the late 1950’s over unilateral nuclear disarmament, and the 1980’s Bennite surge – and retreat, the capitulation of the suppose “local government Lefties”, Ken Livingston and Ted Knight and co in supporting Liverpool council in fighting Tory cuts to council budgets in the 1980’s and early 90’s – because the stakes this time were so much higher. In choosing to only focus on that trivial knockabout bit of McDonnell’s speech which poured vitriol on shit-stirring journalists – but ignores McDonnell’s repeating of his support for utter betrayal of our Leave voting working class supporters, they are fooling only those who want to be fooled , about the treachery involved in John McDonnell’s recent pro Remain pronouncements.

  11. We dont have a manifesto unless we leave, its business as usual in the private members club that is the EU
    Unless you have the support of 60% plus for a 2nd referendum its not going to happen, why should it

    1. Doug if you are saying we should support Leave, which barring a no deal is the only way we can leave because our votes are needed to carry it, we then become no different to the Tories i.e. another Brexit Party. What do you think our chances will be then of winning an election? I can tell you, they will be zero.

      1. Jack T
        The country was screaming out for clear red water between Labour and cheap and nasties, new labour lost 4 million voters with their Tory light policies
        Look at the stitch up after EU elections and answer a very simple question,
        Can we implement manifesto commitments under current EU competition laws
        Leave and reform under Labour brino, simples

      2. ” Next referendum will not happen unless there is at least 60% plus polling for at least 6 months”

        Why do you keep repeating this nonsense as if it were a fact rather than a figment of your imagination.

  12. The best way to deal with anti Labour squeakers is to ignore then go on the offensive by promoting all the positive things. The squeakers are trying to force a reactive response, do not buy into what they say. Every time they squeak then squawk out the Labour greatnesses

  13. Just watched the ITV morning show Talking with Kevin Maguire from the mirror and his nasty Tory pal.Absolutely sickening to watch the presenters and Maguire revelling in bashing Corbyn and Labour on AS and brexit.Strangely enough the only other time have I witnessed such happiness and glee was CNN morning show that ran a panel of unbiased opinions on Trump.CNN ran a daily show of gleefully bashing trump,and it makes me wonder whether the British media have only just begun and we will see the worst yet to come.OFcourse on todays show our deputy leadership got a good plug! Its really time to take the gloves off.Naturally the upcoming BBC shitfest on AS inside Labour party was plugged by the ITV presenters laughing and smiling with that snake Maguire.Truly a demoralizing experience to watch that crap and wonder if the whole western world has gone insane? ………just saying?

    1. There will be a reckoning, Joseph. If the rich don’t change it’ll be a cull.
      I won’t live to see it but it’s inevitable.
      Neoliberalism demands ever greater growth and ever greater profits – that and population growth are both unsustainable and anyone with a brain sees it.
      Even while fighting to maintain their privilege the 1% are already building bunkers in New Zealand – a futile waste of money as any bunker can be destroyed – but it proves they too anticipate a dystopian future.
      Only by becoming our genuine, unstinting benefactors and reversing the despoliation of the Earth can the rich avoid their own or their descendants’ violent deaths in revolution.
      We being in the majority our losses will be far greater in conflict – but the rich will suffer a sudden extinction event comparable to the dinosaurs’ unless they reverse their present direction in time for us to forgive them.

      So far they’re covering their eyes and ears and bleating LALALALALA but if they don’t stop their stupidity soon they’ll hear our singing over gunfire.

      1. Thanks for that. I needed it. Cry havoc and let loose the dogs of socialism. They’re doomed, Captain, doomed. Take care.

  14. Jack T, “no shadow of doubt” and “I can tell you, they will be zero” – on a subject with valid arguments on both sides – weakens an argument.
    And I already believe persuading the EU leftward from within by force of argument is more likely than from without.

    I begin to suspect one can no more win or lose the Brexit argument on logic than one can persuade a Marmite lover of its disgusting nature or an opera lover of the superiority of Dylan.

    1. John McDonald…….John puts up a defence of the Labour party and the smears.Unfortunately we need to get a grip on reality.We are rarley given a chance in the media and johns answer :they are drunk:.Not good enough we need to Attack,Attack,.and drop the defending and silly quotes they are drunk.We must coordinate loyal mps and train them to think about what they use the limited time we have in the eye of a media storm.John has socialism and politics in his DNA but he needs to coordinate loyal mps and fight back and face the storm coming We are rank amatuers in the media stage and we have got to y something to couteract the vicious propaganda machine of the right wing fanatics.

    2. David, “I begin to suspect one can no more win or lose the Brexit argument on logic”

      To an extent I agree but let’s be honest, we have had very few people on the Remain side who have been given the chance by the media to put a logical forceful argument to the public for Remain. Ulike Leave for example when there was an unrelenting barrage of appearances of Farage on our screens, especially from the BBC.

      However, Farage, Arron Banks and the Leave crowd would agree with you totally because Banks admitted in front of a commons enquiry that they didn’t use logic and facts to win the referendum, they used emotion, a tactic honed by Dominic Cummings.

  15. I don’t understand why Squawbox always refers to Corbyn’s opponents in the PLP and elsewhere in the party as ‘centrists’ – that’s a title that they would claim for themselves, but they’re not – they’re right wingers.

  16. “… one can no more win or lose the Brexit argument on logic than one can persuade a Marmite lover …”

    David McN. – I believe that you are right on this in the main – else the swing towards Remain would have been massive after the debacle of the last three years.

    My analogy would be not about Marmite or opera – both of which are the object of rational, if subjective, choice – but of religion, which isn’t penetrated by argument, as millenia of experience has shown.

    The problem for Labour is that – as with ‘anti-semitism’ – the refusal to tell home truths to the faithful whilst trying not to offend those who don’t believe in ritual sacrifice, gets in the way of electoral success.

    1. As a militant atheist I don’t defend religion – but religion is inculcated from first words in children, without which it would fade away.
      It’s false but it is at least based on early attempts at logic – the struggle to understand where we come from and why.
      Without facts to support any conclusion the most plausible guess prevailed from time to time – hence worship of Sun, fertility, ancestors, trees, rocks, various animals and Jesus – all nonsense but still an exercise in logic.

      Nothing rational or logical about taste in food or music – both being pure feeling/emotion was my point.

      We could have assembled facts to build a commonality of reasoning on Brexit but instead the establishment allowed rabble-rousers and charlatans to appeal with impunity to the ugliest emotions people possess.

      1. David I respect your points on religion ,and simply say the marching season will be upon us in a few days and this country still wallows in the suppression of an ancient enemy the Catholics.The Labour party owes a thanks to many of my faith who have always supported Labour’s veiw on collective strength of the society we live and work in .I would also say I have a natural distrust of anyone that could argue conservative party are in any way Christian and most definitely for me the old enemy..take it from !me religion is still a very dangerous subject as I found out in the leafy lanes. .of Sussex some years ago campaigning for the No popery signs to be removed from the main shoping centre and the high street.. Enough said on religion. and just remember that some of us socialists have a belief in god as well as our beloved democratic socialist party.

      2. Joseph, I take it by “this country” you mean NI?
        Sussex as a hotbed of bigotry surprises me very much, never having encountered it once during the years I lived just over the Surrey border and travelled extensively throughout Sussex, Surrey, Hampshire, Berkshire, Buckinghamshire and Middlesex. I did meet plenty of racists however.
        My objection to religion is largely that I believe indoctrinating young children with falsehoods inhibits their access to reason and therefore their life chances.
        One could also argue religious people are more likely to be gulled by Tory propaganda.

        From Psychology Today some years ago:
        “Internationally, countries with the highest levels of average adult educational attainment are among the most secular societies on earth, while those with the lowest levels are among the most religious.”
        (One would have to consider the US bible belt separately to fit that oversimplification I suspect.)

      3. Which is why separating children from each other to send them to different religious schools at an age when they should be mixing is a recipe for future conflict and a policy Labour should change.

        If parents want to give children a religious education it is up to them but it should be in their own time, not in state supported schools.

  17. The Sunday Times has less credibility now than when it published the ‘Hitler Diaries’.

  18. Today is D-Day

    Labour MPs must return a form, indicating whether or not they wish to be a candidate at the next election, to the party at 6pm tonight.

  19. David mcnivan…….Me as well david,I have never encountered anything like I came across in Lewis.I thought that the path was difficult in Reigate surrey as a councillor for horley nr Gatwick I have the honour of taking the first borough council seat for Labour in horley town.Working class torys are difficult to campaign and convince. but pick a local issue and get out on the soap box and even working class torys will vote Labour…I was helped by the Tgwu,telephone bank at Croydon helping i identifie possible votes and even had off duty teamsters union helping on layovers.I never forgot my roots in bolton and always kept my accent.But to get back to Lewes ,At times the bigotry I encountered was almost on a parr with SAfrica were in the apartheid days nominally decent people would prop up the evil of apartheid..Many including Labour party I members were supportive of No popery and were uneasy when I brought forward a motion for the Local party,which I withdrew to stop the division my motion would cause.Yes david I was staggered but I had the experience that NIrland campaign and anti apartheid campaign gave me. But nothing compares to a van load of Orangmen turning up to beat and attack you.Still all in the past and I have fond memories of campaigning,and all I want now is to see a democratic socialist Labour party in government then I will reluctantly face my God ?

  20. Breaking News
    Daily Mirror
    Labour FINALLY agree to back Remain after months of internal disputes
    It comes after months of internal disputes and can kicking on the issue

    Jeremy Corbyn has come under huge pressure to change the party’s position (Image: Getty Images)
    The Labour Party have come out in favour of a second referendum for which they would campaign for Remain.
    The new position also sets out that in the case of a general election they would promise to stick to the result of the 2016 election but negotiate a deal with the EU to respect the Brexit.

    Any final Labour deal would then go back to the people with the option to Remain on the ballot paper.

    The announcement follows a meeting of the Labour-backing trade unions
    It is a major triumph for pro-Remain MPs and unions.
    It comes following the party’s disastrous showing at the European elections when the pro-Remain Lib Dems sailed ahead.

    A source said: “Jeremy has been working for weeks to unite the party and the whole Labour movement.”

    The big five unions met first for talks, followed by a two-hour meeting with all of the affiliated unions.
    No Labour officials were present.
    Following the announcement Chi Onwuruh, who supports a second vote tweeted: “This is great, trade unions leading the Labour movement to reject hard right Brexit and give people a chance to vote on a deal

  21. Below is the full text of the Trade Union’s position in both scenarios.

    Labour’s two Brexit scenarios, as set out by trade unions
    2 mins read
    Labour-affiliated trade unions met today to discuss the party’s Brexit position. Pressure has been building on the leadership, and Jeremy Corbyn in particular, to have a clear stance and back Remain – before being forced to do so by conference in September. But there has been resistance from Unite the Union general secretary Len McCluskey, as well as staffers in the leader’s office and dozens of Labour MPs. In addition to concerns about the potential electoral impact of such a shift, and the possible effect on popular faith in our democratic processes, opponents of ‘going full Remain’ have also pointed out that there are flaws in the plan to renegotiate the Brexit deal then put it to a public vote and campaign for Remain.
    This appears to have been a key factor in the conclusions reached at the meeting today. The final text produced by the unions shows that they have considered the argument that it would not be logical in the event of an early election for Labour to propose renegotiating Brexit, then campaign for Labour’s deal in parliament, hold a referendum and campaign against that very deal. The unions have taken into account this criticism by separating the TULO Brexit position into two scenarios. Below is the full text.

    Scenario 1
    The Labour Party should confirm that whatever deal is negotiated by the new Tory Prime Minister or an exit based on no deal should be put to the people in a public confirmatory vote. The options must be:
    Accepting the deal or a Tory no deal in the knowledge of its terms
    Remaining in the European Union.
    In this event, the Labour Party should campaign to remain in the European Union.

    Scenario 2
    In the event that a general election is called, Labour’s manifesto position should be:
    Negotiating with the European Union to respect the Brexit vote from 2016, reflecting the negotiating priorities that Labour has outlined.
    Any final Labour deal should then be put back to the people. The option on the ballot paper should be:
    Accepting the Labour negotiated deal
    Remaining in the European Union
    The Labour Party’s campaign position on such a ballot should depend on the deal negotiated.
    The first scenario makes clear that Labour would back Remain against a Tory deal or no deal. This position will please Remainers and be seen as sensible by most in the party. But according to the second scenario, Labour’s manifesto in a snap election would advocate renegotiating the deal, which would be put to a public vote but Labour would not necessarily support either its own deal or Remain. It would “depend on the deal negotiated”. This compromise is likely to be regarded as more ‘fudge’ by critics: it very explicitly declines to take a view on whether Remain is better than a Labour-negotiated deal, which is the crux of the ongoing controversy after all.

  22. If Labour the Labour party have decided to back a second referendum then I would have to back a second referendum despite it’s being a decision that flys in the face of democracy..We are Lucky in not having to face Hobsons choice or later on Murphy’s law. I CANNOT resist in saying I voted remain and for once in my life selfish reasons.?

    1. Joseph, things have changed so much and more is now known about the consequences of Leaning that it is only democratic to allow people to confirm their original choice. Democracy cannot be destroyed by democracy.

      1. Democracy will be destroyed if you dont honour the result, the very best you can hope for is Leave and reform and rejoin,
        Next referendum will not happen unless there is at least 60% plus polling for at least 6 months
        You dont have the numbers and you never will until after we leave and address causes of brexit

      2. Doug 08/07/2019 at 11:29 pm

        ”Next referendum will not happen unless there is at least 60% plus polling for at least 6 months”

        Why do you keep repeating this nonsense as if it were a fact rather than just a figment of your imagination.

      3. “Democracy will be destroyed if you dont honour the result…”

        Oh P..erl…eease! This is absolute, unadulterated nonsense! Apart from the fact that ‘honouring the result’ actually means recognising that a majority of the electorate expressed no desire for Brexit, the concept that this dog’s dinner of a vote represents some inalienable everlating decision is a mystical fantasy for religious nuts – not a sensible view of a working democracy.

        ‘Democracy is undemocratic’ FFS! It’s known as self-contradictory ‘twaddle’.

  23. Of only we could have made the Tory s own the referendum and Brexit,The reason we have shared the damage falls on Watson’s treacherous deputy leadership..He set himself as a rallying point for disaffected mps and Labour party members.We will need to learn from what has been a media and internal Labour party disaster,Leaking,briefing against our own Leader and the farcical NEC will mean the disciplinary AS scam Will run and run and entertain the media and the gullible public for some time.We must make sure the conference this year is not just a media show and delegates will need answers and so will the membership? …….We need answers?

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: