Analysis News

Academic exposes ‘invisible’ LibDem’s Brexit hypocrisy. Swinson pushing UK toward no-deal Brexit

Swinson and co revealed as ‘conspicuous by their absence’, doing next to nothing in EU referendum campaign

LibDem leader Jo Swinson has been widely derided on social media for her attempts to claim Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn didnt ‘fight’ to keep the UK in the European Union during the 2016 referendum campaign.

Critics pointed out that Ms Swinson’s own record during the campaign consisted of a couple of vague Twitter comments and a lot of tweets about cats, while Corbyn’s record of hundreds of rallies, public and media appearances dwarfed that of almost anyone else involved in the campaign on either side:

But it wasn’t only a question of Ms Swinson’s personal lack of effort in 2016 that damns the LibDems. As leading academic specialist on the LibDems Professor Andrew Russell pointed out not too long afterward, the whole LibDem party was ‘conspicuous by their absence’ during the campaign:

Journalist Mike Hind – a pro-EU Labour supporter who was one of the first to point out Professor Russell’s findings – considers the current disinformation campaign by Swinson and her party to be not only inaccurate but playing a key role in ‘normalising political lying’:

Hind posted a thread in which he contrasted Corbyn’s record with that of the ‘invisible’ LibDems, Labour supporters’ and LibDem supporters’ referendum voting – and concluded that the LibDems are pushing the UK toward a no-deal Brexit as they abandon facts in favour of lies:


The Professor’s facts shame the LibDems and their latest leader Swinson. Hinds’ conclusions about the significance of those facts are spot on.

No matter how they try to dress it up or point the finger, with their dishonesty the LibDems are putting their shoulder to the wheel to help Boris Johnson tip the UK over the no-deal cliff.

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. She was definitely in “White Chicks.”
      Not that I ever watched it you understand but you couldn’t miss the publicity photos.
      Definitely her bread-pudding face, no question.

    2. I was brought up by my mum and dad, both of whom told me that one should never be rude to a person who is not male. So I would never say things like, she’s a liar, a hypocrite, untrustworthy, talentless and unpleasant. I am not going to start now!

    1. Yeah, right. Open goal. Now who was that wanker of an ex-Labour MP who said we’d have won the snappie without Corbyn?

  1. Skwawkbox doing the Job of MSM again. You can be sure if that was Corbyn they would be screaming from the roof tops for weeks. I guess being the original source of this bullshit it must be difficult for them now. What an effing state we’re in when outright lies on important issues get a free pass from our fearless press but we get wall to wall coverage about a few hecklers during a Corbyn speech.

  2. The LibDems are utterly contemptible. Laugh in the face of anyone admitting to being a supporter!

  3. Michael Parenti has always warned against thinking that the establishment is stupid or ignorant. This ‘gaslighting’ by the LDs is for a reason … I imagine that the press may well start referring to the LD ‘shadow cabinet’ or Chuka as the LD Shadow Foreign Secretary. The aim is to try and further marginalise Corbyn and Labour.

    Seer #freeassange 🇵🇸🇻🇪🇾🇪🇳🇮🇨🇺🔥🔥@mitchmusic suggests:

    ‘If you’re wondering why the language of the @LibDems
    is so preposterous, and that of opposition, it’s designed to make the uninitiated believe that. The propaganda says Corbyn and Labour are lost, doing nothing… sure the LDs will never win an election, they don’t need to..

    They’re there to stop actual change.

    …. The forthcoming election will be toned as Johnson’s triumphant victory march for Brexit number one and number two, as the attempt to demolish the only party leader offering actual opposition. The establishment will use the LibDems as much as Johnson. #VoteLabour

  4. I find it difficult to talk about the parasite lib dems and keep it consructive and polite.I have some history with them from my days in Surrey.I do not envey Corbyn in sitting down to discuss anything with swansong or any of the lib dems!.I really don’t think that this no Confidence vote can work,with the DUP backing up the torys and only a couple of torys with us its obvious that the maths don’t add up.But at least Corbyn as exposed the lib dems for the frauds and liars they are!

  5. It’s good politics by JC and will stand us in good stead in the GE when it comes, expose and condemn those responsible for No Deal
    Clearly the VONC cannot be won and the timetable is against any other solution
    There is a strong chance Blowhard will call GE to get a majority that will allow him to push No Deal through for simple reason they can bullshit an election before chaos of No Deal blows them out of the water
    Therefore make capital out of those who refuse to support the VONC and pull the vote,
    The sky is black with the wings of chickens coming home to roost

  6. Yet ANOTHER sociopath who has no qualms whatsoever about lying through their teeth.

  7. “…considers the current disinformation campaign by Swinson and her party to be not only inaccurate but playing a key role in ‘normalising political lying’:”

    Political lying (with full state and corporate media backup) is already normalised, how does anyone think the current corrupt and vicious systems remain in place? All that’s happened is the lying and deception has moved up to another level of blatant contempt for the general public.

    1. Maria….thanks for the link……always educational and appreciated!…..An analysis of the Corbyn rebuttal by assorted libs indys and party bailout traitors is easily explained Swansong included……Would any of these misfits and liars want an election that would see them unemployed before Xmass,with no prospect of gainful employment after entertaining the media for so many years.No more gravy train……and no chance of them Turkey’s voting for Xmass?

    2. As always – an interesting and insightful piece by Craig Murray, even if I fundamentally disagree with his definition of ‘honouring the result of the referendum’.

      I think that he’s correct that the influence of the Blair right on the LibDems will be as much regretted as their dire influence in Labour.

      Implicitly this view makes a distinction between this group and what can be termed the ‘old Labour’ right – a distinction that is worth bearing in mind when considering the ease with which they ease their way across the boundaries of parties with essentially opposed philosophies.

      1. RH Do you mean the gang of four,that betrayed the Labour party and started the Libs?.. They never took off but left a legacy inside Labour and the libs..Shirley Williams helped push through the destruction of the NHS,Owens an isolated lonly old man an inspiration for Blair…. and Jenkins the angry man on self destruct…..and the fourth was the man who we all forgot!Traitors all of them but were never as laughable as the famous tinge chucka party.. You can bet chuka panicked when Corbyn mentioned general election…. They are all doomed anyway when Boris De ppifel Johnson calls an election…..hopfuly we see the end of the right wing inside Labour?

      2. “Do you mean the gang of four,that betrayed the Labour party and started the Libs?”

        No, Joseph. There were many others who didn’t. Which is my point – that the careless MSM labelling of ‘Left’ and ‘Right’ doesn’t capture the dimensions of the Labour Party that I know.

        I’ve known enough self-labelled ‘Left’ arseholes who would also sell their own grandmothers (let alone principles) to swallow simplistic claims to virtue just on that basis … and, as a corollary, some who would be labelled ‘Right’ with whom I would happily be in the trenches.

  8. RH I doubt many of us including myself started off as socialist,or even left wing!…..We developed into socialist through lifes experience as young people.I was always an activist first,but age and injury weaken direct physical actions.Experience should direct us to socialism if we have a moral compass and I am a firm believer that in the society we live in today left wing and right wing cannot exist in the same party……I do not tolerate this broad church and I cannot understand that we think that right wing infiltrators inside Labour are anything other than a corrosive cancer destroying any chance of a Labour government…..simple lodgic RH….1+1= 2~….not 3or 4after a cosy chat over tea ☕and biscuits.

    1. “I am a firm believer that in the society we live in today left wing and right wing cannot exist in the same party”

      Given that this depends on the movable feast of subjective definitions, your pessimism would mean that progressive politics is f.cked.

      Simplistic notions of ideological purity are regressive poison – and ends up in a place where the pigs and the men become indistinguishable. Orwell got that idea not from theory, but from practical experience of ideologues.

      1. RH, if you’re willing to give us your personal, non-subjective definition of ‘progressive politics’ we can decide whether we agree with you.
        You’ve always been rather non-specific about what you actually believe in.
        And btw, there’s nothing wrong with theory – ‘practical experience’ is what we have to beware of, because it’s not subject to analysis and is open to misinterpretation by its proponent – and even invention.

      2. “it’s not subject to analysis and is open to misinterpretation ”

        Of course it’s subject to analysis – but interpretation is another thing … just as with terms like ‘socialism’.

        ” if you’re willing to give us your personal, non-subjective definition of ‘progressive politics”

        Who mentioned ‘non-subjectivity’ ? My precise point – ‘progressive’ is a general term that needs practical definition and is worthy of discussion.. Just as do vague terms such as ‘left’ and ‘right’ and ‘socialism’.

        My central issue, however, was not about theory, but something different : the tendency to stick labels on people that are essentially subjective anbd have only limited utility, and miss some key characteristics of individuals. I was responding to Jo’s broad statement that ‘left wing and right wing cannot exist in the same party’ – which begs an awful lot of questions, given experience.

        One of those begged questions is about the nature of the Labour Party., and its relevance to mainstream politics..

      3. RH.. We tried your progressive politics and it leads to divission and outside body’s attatching themselves to the Labour party and attempting to destroy socialism and membership including an attacking our leadership.We cannot keep repeatingmistakes of your so called progressive politics….. Insanity will not be allowed to govern Willy nilly anymore and neither should your version of Labour…… broad church happy familys …Sorry RH your version of Labour has got to be challenged or we cannot survive!

      4. RH, you set great store by your ‘experience’, on the ‘experience’ of others who think like you and on what you’re pleased to call ‘progressive’ politics. Which you refuse to define.
        I say a broad church – ie centrism – is useless in the present circumstances.
        “Ooh, don’t go too far that way Mavis… no, come back, you’re going too far the other way now!”
        That’s over.
        We have to fix everything the Tories broke at the same time as sorting Brexit and there’s no time for wishy-washy thinking or “Let’s try to find a consensus with the right.”
        I think you’d spend five years finding a way to keep Bolsonaro happy before putting the fires out.

      5. David – once again your cantankerous schtick misinterprets. 🙂

        I don’t deny others’ ‘experience’ – it’s what we all refer to and use to make judgments – as in your previous post where you outline part of yours.

        You’re absolutely right that the term ‘progressive politics’ is a general, and not particularly diagnostic label. I use it only as a label for a direction that is contrary to the regressive politics that we have seen in the past 50 years – and also to avoid the terms ‘socialism’ or ‘centrism’, which is no less vague and subject to subjectivity (but pretends to precision).

        As I said – my point is simple, and not theoretical at all. Namely that the Labour Party is dead if it retreats into idle sloganising that mindlessly excludes a swathe of the electorate that is required for any progress on the political front. There are some of the Labour ‘right’ that I wouldn’t want to break bread with. There are others with whom I recognise a common interest. As simple as that.

        Forging alliances that will gain power is difficult, and obviously requires a recognition of limits and judgments – but it’s a better prospect than impotent chattering about the rest of the world being ‘centrists’ and impure. That’s religion, not politics. Advocacy and persuasion is necessary.

        Topical example : The Good Friday agreement came about by building on commonalities. The Tories are currently in an ideological war that would destroy such progress. That’s the distinction I’m talking about.

      6. FFS – two people see the same event/experience/street crime/chat up line/sexual encounter/political argument in different ways.
        Experience is NOT open to serious analysis because ALL experience is subjective – people often misunderstand even their OWN experience.
        Forensic analysis regularly – one could say constantly – proves witness testimony – ‘experience’ – to be unreliable.
        Group ‘experience’, being filtered through the prejudices and ambitions of many people, is very unlikely to result in good decisions.
        What you call “progressive politics” and “broad church” I call

        No more focus groups for me, thank you very much.

  9. I started off as socialist long before I knew there was such a thing.
    It was the only thing I took away from Sunday School – I saw through the god/religion delusion when I was six.
    Hearing Dylan’s early stuff (at 12 or 13) on Radio Luxembourg I was amazed I wasn’t the only one appalled at humanity’s idiocy – even those of my schoolmasters who were clergymen were Tories and everyone else I knew was clay.
    Since as soon as I could think I’ve believed “socialism-evolving-into-something-approaching-communism” is how the world ought to be.
    No poor, ergo no rich.
    No doubts, no back-pedalling even when Bob’s flame went out.
    Waiting for humankind to catch up makes for a depressing kind of existence though – mostly through failing to live up to my own beliefs.

    1. David……I was busy in activism fighting against the establishment and probably drifted into socialism without making a choice till I signed up for Labour….which to me must represent the working classes and that automatically transmits to socialism.I notice the increasingly cheese and wine 🍷garden party the greens Snooty Lucas has urged corbyn to step down if the talks cannot agree that he should be pm?The pretending left wing are coming out in droves?,can you get Allan lad to make a list?

      1. Like yourself Joseph! And I don’t need to make a list, as I think it’s obvious to most people who the im-posters are, posting all day long EVERY day, day after day, week after week, month after month, ingratiating themselves with the readership, etc, etc. If you can’t beat them with a ‘Graham Hindson’, then join them and pretend you’re one of them, and influence them THAT way, without them knowing or realising they are being subtly influenced and manipulated.

        Where were you a councillor by the way?

      2. 🙂 very subtle, Allan.
        Sneak the question in there all offhand and “by the way?” like that and Joe’s definitely gonna forget that you’ve already asked five times.

        Applying for a pre-xmas job in a bonded booze whorehouse over the school holidays I was asked quite casually by the head of security if I’d ever been in trouble with the police.
        I hadn’t so the Q’s continued for a minute or so – then he quickly leaned in close and asked the police thing again louder and with a hard stare.
        I just broke up. I could hardly breathe and I laughed so much I almost pissed on his shoes. Still got the shitty job though 🙂

      3. Allan.lad you are flattering in suggesting that somone might pay me for my misspelling poor.punctuation and rigid veiws .. But hey ho!you can still get free treatment on the NHS for your obsessive behaviour.Do you realise how insulting your nasty behaviour is?You are now becoming paranoid as well.If you can’t argue your version of runaway and hide politics then please give it a rest… .. You are becoming unhinged Allan lad

      4. Oh I think he’s been that way for a while, wouldn’t you say?

  10. I think allan lad feels that I should of applied for membership of his exclusive private club.My Labour party membership…..Fifty pounds ,double the average ,and having served office as a Labour borough councillor is not good enough for his club…..He wants me and others that believe that we come out fighting and not worry about the msm is in someway subversive.Allan lad get a life I didnt come “out of nowhere” Bolton born ! Surrey. Derry…Pretoria..ya bok nia…France….and s.east asia …..I had hot soup for breakfast this morning and finished with Khmer sweet tea?…..It’s late morning here….and I have not learned how to tolerate corrosive nasty characters like Allan lad and have a good life with wife of over Forty years and I believe the Labour party is in trouble because of the disgusting lazy attitude of putting up with the crap doled out by the the msm,subversive traitors inside the Labour party and collaborators like Allan……get rid of the corrosive nasty characters like Watson and half the PLP…..and we might build a party fit for goverment!….I and where was l a councillor…….you can search for that you clown …how difficult can it be….I have given you enough clues and I have even appeared on your favourite BBC with one of my many campaigns?get your finger out and start digging?

Leave a Reply