Analysis comment

Starmer bypassed NEC to announce investigation into whistleblowers who exposed right-wing sabotage

NEC member criticises manoeuvre

Keir Starmer and his deputy Angela Rayner today announced an investigation into the leaked Labour Party report that accused senior right-wing former staffers of sabotaging the party’s electoral campaigns and of obstructing disciplinary processes.

However, in doing so Starmer bypassed Labour’s National Executive Committee (NEC) – the party’s sovereign body – an act that was criticised by the NEC’s chair, TSSA union representative Andi Fox:

Starmer’s decision to go around the NEC may be because he has framed the investigation as looking primarily into how and why the report was commissioned in the first place – and into the whistleblowers who leaked it when no action was taken – more than into the former staffers whose behaviour the report exposes.

This seems a needlessly extreme step by Starmer, who now has a comfortable ‘centrist’/right majority on the NEC given the presence of representatives from right-wing unions, three new NEC members from this month’s by-election and his own representatives he appoints as leader.

This makes it a matter of even greater concern to those in the party and movement who value due process, democracy and the integrity of Labour’s ‘machine’.

Especially when the SKWAWKBOX understands that the report was given to Starmer almost immediately after he was announced as the party’s new leader.

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. “This seems a needlessly extreme step by Starmer, who now has a comfortable ‘centrist’/right majority on the NEC given the presence of representatives from right-wing unions, three new NEC members from this month’s by-election and his own representatives he appoints as leader.”

    Seems needlessly extreme – What seems “needlessly extreme” is precisely how we should have operated. Belt and braces. Take no prisoners. Not wishy washy damp drift.

      1. You may well be proved to be right but I have yet to be convinced that either of the other 2 offered a better alternative.

      2. saw RLB as a stop gap. The while thing should have been abandoned though.

      1. Think we need to read up on Castro and Bolivar. How did they achieve and sustain their governments❓ We need a grounded engine… a grounded army for change rather than theory heavy out of touch moaners and eye rollers.

        Ps, eye rolling reference is due to my being struck by it. Gave it some thought. Think tis because when one is ensconced ONLY amongst an agreeable un confrontational bunch, then a certain self boredom develops. There is no stimulus to excite thought … the tight group members have heard it all before… they agree… Thus any disagreement is treated like the end of the world. And, yet, agreement serves only to keep the group placid… Group think. Group soothing, Group inactivity. Group sleep. Group placid. Group flacid. Group left death. Group deadweights. Harsh❓❓❓ No. True 🌹🌹🌹

      2. Known knowns
        EHRC investigation is dead in the water, they now have to move onto Tory party
        To all members stay and fight, it wont take much to force Cockwombles out of party,
        They will form a new party, which will hoover up one nation Tories and LibDums
        Labour will partner up with Greens
        Cheap and nasties will keep racists and billionaires
        That makes FPTP a completely different proposition
        What’s not to like

    1. “a disappointing start to his leadership”,you mealy mouthed tosser,it confirms what everyone other than you and Tricky Dicky were saying about him.

      1. john – Thank you for your ‘eloquent’ contribution. I am presuming that you meant the self appointed ‘left-wing’ when you refer to “everyone”. I, like the majority of the membership, have just voted him into office. I may have been conned but if that turns out to be the case then I won’t have been the only one. I would also like to reiterate the dilemma that I and many other members faced, the only other alternatives on offer just weren’t very convincing.

      2. The calibre of the other candidates does not add or subtract anything to Woodentop’s status you bloody moron.Just how much evidence do idiots like you need before you own up to being stupid.At least Tricky Dick claimed he wasn’t voting for any of them,which was fair enough,but you come here bold as brass as though this report,and Woodentop’s response didn’t exist.

      3. I’m afraid the ironically named Thatcher is the perfect illustration of why the wider left, tarred with the same brush, loses credibility.

        Just mouthing empty slogans and shouting like a drunk on a street corner doesn’t actually cut the mustard – as both the general and leadership elections show.

        FFS – this is the strategic thought of the Irrelevance Party that backed Tory SunMail policy on Brexit (thus validating the right’s narrative), alienated significant Labour support – and made Starmer tthe popular alternative.

        The wider problem of the leadership election after that shouty pseudo-left debacle was that, beyond Starmer, we were faced with one non-starter and a Lansman glove-puppet. Some choice.

      4. I see tricky Dicky has surfaced to give us the output of his so superior intellect.Obviously he should have been on the ballot for leader,then we have had a real choice as Great Leader.

      5. RH, instead of debating the pros and cons of a bunch of candidates, none of whom were good enough to replace Jeremy Corbyn, we should have been looking at why a left wing Party with half a million members, most of whom joined to support a genuine left wing leader, couldn’t muster up enough talent from it’s MPs to give us a decent choice.

        In the discussions preceding the election, it was all about which candidate had the fewest bad points, not which candidate had the most good points. Then to top it all, each candidate in order to show they were worthy, chose to compete by demonstrating who could grovel most to the very enemy which had strived to make sure that we would never have a leader with Jeremy Corbyn’s principles capable of becoming Prime Minister. There is a madness in the Labour Party which is hard to comprehend and it is seated in the executive and permeates throughout the rest of the organisation.

      6. Yes a madness indeed! It’s rotten to its core, it’s time to face it and take appropriate action – stop giving these charlatans money for a start.

      7. ”I’m afraid the ironically named Thatcher is the perfect illustration of why the wider left, tarred with the same brush, loses credibility.”

        The ‘ironically named’ (John) Thatcher has been FULLY vindicated, both on the EU shithousery within the party and the legacy of said shithousery.

        What have YOU predicted that has been vindicated – Other than your constituency electing a labour MP?

      8. Toffer – well you asked : I diagnosed early on that you were just a shouty and usually spectacularly wrong irrelevance – that was one accurate analysis for a start.

        Beyond that – I predicted that the prat-fall of backing Tory Brexit policy was likely to lose crucial support. Which it did, wiping out the gains that Corbyn made early on.

        … then the prediction that the grovelling response to the ‘antisemitism’ scam accusations would simply endorse the narrative, and give it credibility.

        … the defeat of opposition to the Tories during the Brexit debates – courtesy Lexiteer tossers poncing about with posy ‘working class’ credentials – making Laboutr look weak and directionless.

        … then the fall into the Tory trap of an early election (whilst Johnson was on the up) which was always going to end in grief

        … the general prediction that the result of accumulated strategic mistakes would be an increase in the Tory majority

        … the doomed strategy of having nothing but Lansman’s Becky as an alternative to Starmer – easily seen as a loser.

        … and so on.

      9. Did you REALLY predict ALL them dicky

        Muchos kudos if you did, and you were indeed right – ICGAF to be honest, you colossal bore.

        The ONE thing you ignored was the mass exodus of labour votes at the last election; which would’ve rendered each & every one of your alleged prophesies as the mere bullshit they are.

        But you got your labour MP elected…

  2. ” the report was given to Starmer almost immediately after he was announced as the party’s new leader.”

    That would be due to running away from dealing with “confontation”. Fail to cancel the leadership contest. Get up from sitting on the report. Hand said report to Starmer with the naive belief that Starmer will be floored by it, rather than just kick it in the long grass by hook or by crook.

  3. An investigation into an investigation? Sounds like kicking this treachery into the long grass NOT leadership! Justice delayed is justice denied!!! Be nice if the corrupt corporate media did their job for once…

  4. If you expect anything more than fudge, bull shit and straight lies from this man I fear you will be disappointed.

    1. “Fudge, bullshit and straight lies…”

      They think Starmer will win Labour the next election.

      Jeremy Corbyn might have recovered 3.5 million of the 5 million votes lost by New Labour, but Starmer has lost them all within two weeks.

  5. NOW I distrust Sir Keir Starmer. I distrust him to High Heaven!

    Why is he making it IMPOSSIBLE to give him the benefit of the doubt?

    Seems he is an avowed third-way revivalist!

    No way am I going to leave Labour. It’s my party and ‘new management’ doesn’t change that!

    I don’t care how much the undisclosed millionaires and billionaires gave him, the Labour Party IS the property of its members.

    1. There never was any notion of seems.

      The stand out definition of this man is his membership of the Trilateral Commission. This is a club that included Epstein and still has Henry Kissinger…A club founded by Rockefeller, that well known Robin Hood figure. Branson is a saint by comparison.

      Other clues are there. His tenure as public prosecutor. His title, and the fact he uncomfortable with using it (why?!). It goes much further if you can be be bothered to dig.

      Starmer marks a return to the American style of bipartisanship, at the very least (and likely towards darker paths (the Trilateral Commission are _not_ our friends)). To paraphrase one of his new ministers, “He will stab us all in the front”

      1. NVLA – I’m curious, what has the ‘Trilateral Commission’ actually done or achieved in recent years and do you have any insight on Starmer’s actual involvement (beyond his membership) does he regularly attend meetings or does he sit on any specific committees. What do these bogeymen actually get up to?
        Or is the reality that it is nothing more than a talking shop. I genuinely don’t know, do you?

      2. I know next to nothing. But by his membership alone I’m given space make educated guesses. Like a detective follows a hunch until evidence either confirms or denies.

        The T.C. is an invitation only club. Here’s two examples of their ‘work’

        Within ten days of assuming power, Barack Obama had appointed eleven members of the Trilateral Commission to top-level and key positions in his administration, some 12% of the TLC’s entire US membership.

        In 1980, congressman Larry McDonald introduced American Legion National Convention Resolution 773 to the House of Representatives calling for a comprehensive congressional investigation into the Council on Foreign Relations and Trilateral Commission, but nothing came of it.[3] McDonald was killed in 1983 aboard Korean Air Lines Flight 007.

        So, what can we take from this and other examples out there?

        1) You don’t mess with the TC.(Why exactly? What’s the (ultimate) plan?)
        2) Almost every member seems to follow the same revolving door career. Just around long enough to gain a name/publicity. There are dozens of examples in America alone (The TC covers America, Asia and Europe). You’re fooling yourself if you think Starmer made himself. He was made.
        3) Most important. What does this mean for us? I think it’s more than safe to say that Sir Keir does _not_ have our backs, and at best will focus on the 40 odd percent the Tories chase. I’m willing to stick my head up and say it’s likely worse.

        But what? War? Depopulation? Global governance (Gordon Brown has spoken of this in the last week…)

      3. SteveH, to dismiss the Trilateral Commission as a talking shop of little relevance is a mistake, as would be dismissing the British-American Project – or any other iteration of the global old boys’ network.
        When they all learn the same attitudes from parents, schools, universities – and survival, dominance and mutual support techniques from such common interest groups as the above – all dedicated to maintaining the hegemony of their class – we need to take notice.
        A list of BAP alumni tells how seriously the establishment takes it:

      4. David – My problem is that all anyone seems to be able to do is point to stuff from decades ago. 1998 was at the start of Blair’s reign, it was quite a different world back then. Also if this organisation is the major threat that you portray them to be then I find it difficult to understand why RLB failed to challenge and attack KS about his membership. It just doesn’t make sense.

      5. SteveH, attendance at these things is, afaik, by invitation only.
        They’re part of the US influencing other countries with accolades and flattery – the carrot. They’re opportunities for the American Way to be shown at its best and for potential allies, dupes or enemies to be identified.

        Envy or admiration by their peers just for being invited – being assumed to have powerful friends, maybe sharing phone numbers with presidents – having effectively been marked out for greatness – would tend to make other ambitious people at home feel inferior and maybe make them defer to alumni.
        Shouldn’t underestimate old boys’ networks in politics, especially US ones where one has to assume the alphabetti spaghetti takes notes, video and has a serious interest in gaining an edge abroad.

      6. Did somebody say Jeffrey Epstein was a member? He certainly qualified on the ‘phone numbers’ issue. I hope he wasn’t in charge of entertainment? Why was he there? Because he was a top spook alongside Maxwell? The man who knew so many secrets they bumped him off?

    2. The networks of influence between the US and UK have been well known for ages. In recent history, the Lexiteers, of course, are the most recent block in the Labour Party working to increase this US influence.

  6. The socialist group of 30 Labour MPs should be lobbied to leave and set up a new party immediately. In light of this report, advising Labour Party members to stay and fight is absurd. The Labour Party is institutionally corrupt. It is owned by right wing establishment forces. Fighting inside The Labour Party is a waste of time and resources. Jeremy Corbyn was never allowed to take control. This fact should be abundantly clear by now. There are now potentially 300,000 disenfranchised Labour Party members looking for a new home. A new party could replace Labour in England and Wales just as the SNP have done in Scotland.

    1. Well put! Continued subservience to this collection of A class bullshitters would be absurd. It would be good to see a ‘senior’ figure take the lead.

    2. I totally agree & I say this as one of the 300,000 disenfranchised members.. I will not vote Labour unless there is a complete regime change, which is highly unlikely but would join a new socialist party.

    3. Easier say that done. I am ready to leave but will wait to see the results to the NEC’s elections in the summer. If we manage to retain control of the NEC, I will stay.
      It is only a matter of waiting a year for Starmer to mess up royally. Labour will lose seats in the Scottish elections, it would lose seats too in the local elections in the north and midlands and can even lose in London GLA’s elections.
      I cannot see the BAME vote in London that supported JC voting for Sadiq Khan, since he isn’t a charismatic major to the levels of Ken Livingston or even Boris Johnson and after 4 years on the job he hasn’t accomplished much.
      This would be a clue for the Socialist Campaign group to mount a leadership challenge, we have the numbers. In that respect we are in the best position we have ever been.

      1. You speak resounding sense Zubiak. Left Members need to retain their membership of the freshly-flailing Labour Party under Sirky Starmer:

        1) Stay and vote to consolidate the Left in the summer’s NEC election.

        2) Mobilise in CLPs to support only SCG-endorsed candidate – esp. in London where Khan is disappointingly insipid (managerialism without the management), but also in local hot-spots where the Corbyn revival took hold.

        3) WATCH where third-wayers and centrists fail to hold their seats and when the leadership’s failure to resonate with the new working class flounders and embarrasses us.

        Left Members will have to be every bit as ruthless in only supporting SCG endorsed candidates as the centrists were sleekit, devious and disloyal under Corbyn.

        I hope to High Heaven that the SCG assumes the movement role that the above requires and that the Left mobilise under it. Unity is strength and work to rule should be our method.

      2. Starmer is implicated in this report. He was part of the 2016 coup attempt. He now controls the party. He has promoted Blairites such as Streeting and Phillips into the shadow cabinet. He will readmit Campbell and all the other Blairites who left the party under Corbyn. He openly pays tribute to these people. 2/3 of the PLP are, and always have been, opposed to Corbyn and the left. The NEC is back in control of the right. It is madness to continue a fight that can never be won under these circumstances.The Labour Party is, in reality, two parties. The right will never tolerate the left being in power. Surely, that is patently obvious. It’s written in the pages of this report.

    4. “The socialist group of 30 Labour MPs should be lobbied to leave and set up a new party immediately. ” etc. etc.

      Translation : ‘ It’s hard – so let’s just give up and hand over to the Tories’

      1. I didn’t say it was hard, I said it was pointless. The Labour Party is dysfunctional to the core. It is, in fact, two parties under one roof who are fundamentally opposed to each other. The dominant faction are Thatcherites. This faction constitute the majority of the PLP and the current leadership. They work in tandem with the MSM and other establishment forces. The last 5 years have shown that this dominant faction will not allow the left to hold power even when 300,000 members or 62% support the policy program of the leadership. They actively worked relentlessly to lose elections and depose the leadership. They used black propaganda. They were successful. To assume that there is anything worth fighting for – given that the dysfunction at the heart of the Labour Party is proven fact – is delusional.

    5. spot on and well said , I was going to wait till Sept COnf BUT the pace things are changing at now re this report I think it’ll blow the Party to utter bits , and I’ll be among the 300K membership looking for a new party .
      FFS please you 30 or so socialist MPs NOW is the time , join forces with the JVL the FOrward Momentum grp ( minus Lansman ) and kick start a new party , WE’VE HAD ENOUGH OF THE CORRUPT PLP AND PARTY MACHINE TIME TO CHANGE .

    6. How many wouldn’t join because of the right wing factions, How many wasn’t allowed to join, how many were kicked out?
      Has Labour ever been democratic to the members?
      It’s always been run by the middle and upper class with top down policies, it gives breadcrumbs at conference. Corbyn was the message and proved Labour wasn’t the answer.
      Something new is needed that’s not tainted by its past, something which actually offers democracy to its members.

  7. Despite being a member of the Chicken coup, despite being an architect of a policy to refuse to accept the democratic referendum result, despite refusing to disclose who his secretive financial backers were plus being a member of an democratic right wing billionaire funded American organisation and whilst head of the states prosecution service that bullied the Swedish authorities to continue to persecute a political prisoner Julian Assange, some misguided members who were duped into voting for this charlatan still cannot admit they were conned. Just like those who voted for Blair were conned!

  8. Expect a coalition – a “government of national unity to deal with this unprecedented challenge” – Starmer becomes deputy PM, in return agrees to defer the next election to an unspecified date “in the interest of the continuity the country needs in these unprecedented times, and for the promotion of civil harmony in view of the recent sabotage of essential services by striking so-called ‘unions’ and so-called ‘democrats’.”
    “There will be distribution of food and water only if the streets are empty of protesters.”

    1. I didn’t notice even one of these MPs come out in support of Chris Williamson!

      1. Jack – Unfortunately in reality CW’s popularity was for the most part confined to a very devoted following from ‘left wing’ activists but beyond this select group his appeal was rather limited.

      2. Paul – Is originality not one of your strong points then? The election results in Derby North speak for themselves.

      3. SteveH, I think you’ll find it’s not for the reason you suggest, it’s because there are far fewer Socialist MPs in the Labour Party than many people think. They would rather hide behind the sofa than come out in support of someone who was very obviously targeted for speaking the truth about the smears. It put the rest of them to shame.

        JC received exactly the same ‘support’, when it came to the crunch, ‘friends’ such as John McDonnell bottled out and even gave the impression that JC was too slow to act over the virtually non-existent A/S. Too many in the Party are fond of mouthing ‘solidarity’ to each other but when it’s required they run a mile.

  9. David McNiven 12/04/2020 at 8:24 pm · · Reply →
    There can’t be a single honest person remaining on Labour’s staff – if there were the report would have been leaked…

    Had it already been leaked by then? I mean, if I have ‘powers’ I should probably use them for good, shouldn’t I? Hmm, let’s see…
    There can’t be a single honest person remaining on Labour’s staff – if there were Twatson would have fallen out of a window…

    1. There’s a few. We wouldn’t have had this without them. But. They are most definitely endangered.

      Nice post about the BAP.

  10. Surely, it should have been broadcast widely at the time tha “in 2019, half of all anti-Semitism complaints came from a “one individual”.

    Surely that ONE INDIVIDUAL who was ALSO “rude and abusive” to party staff.” should have been suspended, investigated and expelled for a pattern of behaviour.

    That individual was not alone. Why were they not suspended and investigated? Why did no one point out the obvious vile wrongdoings? Why were accusers not ordered to take their allegations to the police?

    Why was Faulkner giving his verdict BEFORE any investigation? Why was the PLP allowed to bring the party into disrepute? Why did Shami Chakrabati day on BBC 5Live around 22:17hrs , the very day that Alistair Campbell was expelled, that he could be allowed back in later?

    1. And why is the party so timid about naming “the individual” who falsely accused so many and with such lack of care that he actually obstructed the work of the NEC?

  11. This statement from Labour Against The Witch Hunt – ………….The report describes how “the pro-Corbyn left decisively won” at Brighton CLP’s annual general meeting (AGM) in July 2016. Afterwards, two high-ranking Labour officials discussed how to overturn the result: “I say act now and worry about [rules and legal issues] later, so long as we don’t do something that’ll end up f[***]ing everything else up.” Party officials then overturned the AGM’s decisions, the old executive was restored and the local party split into three separate CLPs. (p113)

    *** Labour officials discussed how to continue the unlawful suspension of Wallasey CLP, where the left “are properly organised” – in order to save the local right-wing MP, Angela Eagle, from being challenged. (p114)

    *** We read that, “in many cases party members at all levels request the suspension of another party member as a way of escalating or indeed resolving a dispute. There is a wrongly-held view that political opponents can be ‘taken out’ of a contest or stopped from attending meetings by making a complaint with the intention of achieving a suspension of that member.” (p533) Clearly, this is exactly what has been taking place, even as recently as during the March 2020 NEC by-election. Half a dozen of the candidates were suspended in the middle of the contest, before any investigation was launched…………
    Full statement –

  12. What I find really troubling is that previously when right wing or pro-Zionist people have leaked from the party sensitive information, there’s never been any inquiry to who leaked and whether or not privacy was infringed. That suggests that when things are leaked which are convenient and helpful to a certain partisan group, it’s ok.
    Who can blame the whiste-blowers for following precedent!
    Starmer is not dealing with the real issue (most likely as it is isn’t in HIS interests or in the interests of those he represents).
    Unacceptable and outrageous.

  13. Just for the record, Emilie Oldknow is Starmers choice for general secretary. I seem to be quite good at prediction lately so here’s another. He knows all about it and will defend them to the hilt.

    Also, how many of you have stopped and thought about Oldknow (and others) sabotaging the NHS via the 2017 GE loss? The PPE? The staff struggling right now…All because a group of rich fucks felt threatened…

    This group of turds need dragging from their homes and thrashing. And unless we take direct action as a group, people like Oldknow will continue to piss on us whilst telling us it’s raining.

    1. NVLA – Whilst I acknowledge your concerns about a change of General Sec we shouldn’t loose sight of the fact that the post of General Secretary is an elected office and therfore it is the membership not Starmer (or any other individual) that actually has the collective power to appoint a new GenSec

      1. Gotta laugh, is this the very same membership that brought us the disaster Starmer by any chance SteveH, and the very same allegedly rabidly Leftwing membership that ensured Burgon got a risible vote?

        I’ll stick to Christopher Williamson thank you very much, who’s ‘Democracy Roadshows’ were well received by the actual membership.

        Starmer the WoodenTop certainly sums him up, although I prefer plain old Establishment Stooge.

      2. Christopher – The alternatives didn’t really inspire much confidence either. Realisticaly would RLB have been any better?

      3. I don’t give a rodents furry crack about what happens now. I’m done. I want socialism, and Labour is never going to be a part of that. History shows this, and I think this most recent lesson was clear enough, no? So, in the words of Rambo, “Fuck ’em!”

        I’m merely passing on a prediction. Just like I told you Phillips was going into the cabinet 24+hrs previous, this _will_ happen. They iced Corbyn in public. Poor Jenny behind the scenes has no chance… For example, have you ever been ‘Sent to Coventry’? Seen it? How long could you cope being somewhere you’re clearly not wanted? And that’s quite pleasant when it comes to getting rid of people you don’t want…

      4. NVLA – You may be able to find a home with Left Unity, if they are still in existence.

      5. SteveH,

        On that fact I concur 100%, none of the Leadership candidates inspired, which is why, given the Cover-19 Emergency the Leadership Election Farce should have been suspended and Corbyn left in place.

      6. For once, I agree with you, Christopher. The leadership election was an irrelevancy – the Tories are between 50% and 55% in the polls. Like the general election, the timing has played right into their hands.

        That said, Corbyn couldn’t hang on in perpetuity; the media campaign has done too much damage – that’s the reality.

        The problem the Party still faces is the singular lack of potential and real leadership talent after the Blair years – and, truth told, Corbyn himself has had self-evident flaws in that respect.

  14. Does anyone remember Gordon Nardell, the top barrister who was appointed to oversee the A/S investigations? He didn’t stay very long before he was off. At the time I suggested it was because he had uncovered massive corruption but rather than deal with it he skinned out.

    Why has this investigation taken so long to implement and why weren’t the results ‘leaked’ before Starmer was elected?

      1. SteveH “but Starmer is hardly mentioned in this leaked report.”

        He didn’t need to be mentioned and he may well have not known what was going on, although it is hard to believe. All he needed was his lawyer’s brain to realise things weren’t adding up but I suspect he turned a blind eye to it because it suited him.

      2. Jack – Whilst I acknowledge that the leadership’s response to this report has to date been woeful there is no evidence whatsoever that Starter was in any way involved in the subject matter of this document.

      3. SteveH are you genuinely missing the point?

        It’s not about Starmer directly, don’t be too keen to defend him when there is no need.

        If all of this information was in the open much sooner, would we have even had a leadership election? – that’s my point!

      4. Jack – Which begs the question – Why didn’t they get their act together over a year ago when all this evidence (that I’ve read so far) would have been available?

      5. SteveH, you are not keeping up, I’ve already asked that question.

    1. But minus the low street cunning for which we should be grateful I suppose.

  15. My memory’s bad now and I can’t remember how many members Labour had before Corbyn or how bad the party’s financial position was – I only remember a comment here that it was in dire financial straits and the new Corbynite members’ subs had put it back in the black.

    If the establishment machine was able to convince enough people that the most decent man in Parliament with a Gandhi-esque following was a monster – how much easier will it be to prevent Hankie Starmer or any other Labour leader from winning anything ever again?

    I think we’re going to have to 1381 their arses.

    1. 1381 is an interesting idea. A social and economic crisis of this dimension often results in political upheaval. It reminds us of the possibilities there are here; a RW response that cements impoverishment for another generation might be just as much a failure as the feudal Lords were in holding back wage rates. It’s a chance to radically alter our entire system of governance. It’s much preferable to hoping Starmer is really an OK fellow when obviously he isn’t.

  16. Thought for the Day……….Jess Phillips (I’ll knife Corbyn in the Front) is in Starmer’s Shadow Cabinet. New New Labour!

    1. Steve
      Keir has little or no choice or he and rest of them will be out of the party within a year

      1. Doug

        There is always a choice & he has nailed his colours to the mast in no uncertain terms. Is Socialism in the Labour Party worth fighting for? Take off the gloves & roll your sleeves up!

  17. Just started reading the Report – which immediately itself shows itself to be somewhat schizophrenic.

    The ‘Executive Summary’ bends over backwards to condemn what it calls ‘denialism’, and I haven’t found anything in that section that clearly shows that a lot of well-known accusations leading to suspensions have been manipulated. Instead it adopts the generalised tone and attitude of apologia that was the official response throughout the assault on Corbyn. The implication is that putting the small number of cases of *genuine* antisemitism into the wider context of opposition to racism is ‘denialism’.

    Now – this opinion is based on a quick read of that Summary, but I have yet to see here the connection being made between the actions of officials and the use of ‘antisemitism’ slurs as one mechanism for dissing political opponents. i.e the dots aren’t joined up at this stage.

    Now read on …?

    1. … and reading on, it is clear that the Report, whilst demonstrating the partisan lack of professionalism amongst the central staff under McNicol, has little to say about the fundamental issues of justice and transparency that arise from the ‘antisemitism’ debacle.

      It seems more focused on justifying the changes made by Jennie Formby rather than tackling those core issues and the injustices arising.

      1. RH, ‘lack of professionalism’??? Wow!!!, a new way to describe sheer unadulterated treachery.

      2. No, Jack, I’m describing another, overlapping dimension, which raises the question of how these utter tossers got appointed in the first place (Yeh – don’t answer that – I know). They weren’t only partisan and treacherous, but lacking in the basic skills – otherwise they’d have covered their tracks better.

      3. Sorry RH I didn’t get your two dimensional approach, were there only two dimensions?

  18. This reports on the prima facia evidence which has not been submitted to the EHRC and at this time is unlikely to be.
    How can an objective outcome be made-with holding vital evidence.
    Transparecy. Integrity. Honesty.Trust.
    In most reports the opening paragraph gives the terms of reference, why and who commissioned is usually explicitly stated.

  19. And now we see Easter Island-head’s style of ‘leadership’ take shape…

    …Just over week is all it took.

    But it’s only ‘disappointing’ , isn’t it, steve?

    1. It is worth a read (I’m only part way through), because it shows layer upon layer of problems in the administration of the Party and the lack of desire or ability to actually get to grips with the need for a transparent disciplinary system that fulfils the requirements of legitimate clarity natural justice. Ironically, this has continued into the Formby era and the regime responsible for dishing this dirt on McNichol et al.

      It’s a fuck-up appropriate to the Covid-19 era.

      1. RH/SM
        Recent NEC elections showed process is still utterly corrupt with suspension of good left wing candidates
        Vexatious claims of anti semitism still being used as a political weapon
        Good news is the reports very existence hamstrings anything EHRC come out with
        Which is why CAA are going so hard on it
        Also shafts any legal actions from Panorama Drama Cockwombles,
        BBC should be approached for a comment
        McNicol and Watson hopefully can kiss there elevated arses goodbye

  20. I’ve sat and thought about this report and the more I’ve thought about the more despaired and angry I’ve become so, I’m making a plea to any current Labour Party members who share my emotions;

    Can you please download the report, print it and send it, via recorded delivery, to the EHRC and ask them to accept it towards their evidenced based investigation of the Labour Party.

    As a minority member, who is disabled due to mental health problems, the abuse and slurs in the report of members who have mental health problems along with the racist abuse and slurs to minority BAME members are truly disgusting.

    I don’t have a printer nor the funds for a printer or I would do this myself. I don’t know if sending the report to the EHRC would do anything good but I don’t know what else to do as the ‘leadership’ are unwilling to do what is obviously necessary.

    1. I’m afraid, Foggy, that the EHRC wouldn’t accept it from a third party (which we are in this situation).

      Beyond that, the Report is significant in nailing the devious double-dealing of the McNichol regime, but pretty useless at tackling the fundamental ‘antisemitism’ scam issue – which it seems to duck in its efforts to prove to the EHRC that ‘It were them, sir’.

      In fact, it seems to accept the premise that ‘antisemitism’ is a major problem for the Labour Party in comparison with other groups in society – i.e its fundamental apologetic stance is utter bollocks.

      Look after yourself

      1. RH
        Unless they lost thousands of complaints
        The basic premise that vexatious claims of anti semitism were being used as a political weapon are proved
        See Pantomime Dame 200 complaints how many resulted in expulsion or prosecution

      2. That may indeed be an implication, Doug – but what I was pointing out is that this report doesn’t highlight that implication. It goes out of its way to duck saying that the narrative about ‘antisemitism’ (as prevalent in the Labour Pary) is a load of toss.

  21. Steven H, asked “ ..what have the ‘ Trilateral Commission done in recent years…”. Where to begin?.

    Let’s look at their ideology as written in 1975 in a 168 page document. Samuel P Huntingdon,( Professor at Harvard and author of the book Clash of Civilisations). Michael Crozier ( European member) and Joni Watanuki ( Japanese member) said . Democratic political system no longer has any purpose . The concepts of equality and individualism gives problems to authority. Democracy has to be restricted. Authority and power of central government has to be increased. Hardly ties in within the policies and philosophies of the democratic socialist Labour Party.

    Who founded the Trilaterals ? David Rockefeller a right wing authoritarian American billionaire, Zbigniew Bzezinski, a Harvard Professor plus a few others. No less than 4 US presidents were either members or members affiliated to the Trilaterals, for example, the Council on Foreign relations in New York with many very influential members from the wealthiest sections of Wall Street, US corporations plus the military and industrial complex. The U.K. had and has many members in it. Both Jimmy Carter and also Bill Clinton were members and had many Trilaterals in very important posts in their administrations as did George Bush ( senior) as well as Obama who was a protege of Brzezinski ( National Security advisor to Jimmy Carter and author of the Chessboard which outlined the theory of using Muslim proxy mercenary armies to fight the Western Imperialist wars which indeed they have been doing since 1979. Eg Afghanistan Mujahadeen, Al Quadea in Bosnia, Syria and Libya)

    Other notable members have been James Baker, Robert Gates, CIA director, Brent Scowcroft, Secretary of defence, Robert Zoelick, president of the world bank and many more. All holding very important posts with great influence to affect government policy, for example in the oil and resource wars in the Middle East former Soviet satellite states and so on. Being a member of the Trilaterals has been very profitable for these individuals, the corporations lobbying them and big business.

    Now, let’s look at Keir Starmer, David Miller and Lord Kerr. All members of the European Trilaterals which met in London on November 2-5 2017. Starmer was present there and participated in the meeting. Members are not elected to it but selected by a careful vetting process. They have to be ideological suited to be chosen and also be in positions of potential power or influence.

    The notion that these are merely “ talking shops” defies evidence. They are anti democratic undermine democratic societies to the betterment of the rich, the powerful and the elites of both the USA, Europe and Japan. To describe with the nonchalant childish expression of being merely “ bogey men” belies the truth. No wonder Starmer tries to play down his membership who was the only one chosen out of all the MPs ( judging by his bullying of the Swedish authorities to continue persecuting the political prisoner Julian Assange whilst head of the States prosecution service ) it not hard to see why and refuses to disclose his secret financial backers.

    Hopefully, the members who voted for this charlatan will realise they have been duped. If any members wish to understand more how pernicious this organisation is, read Professor Antony. C. Sutton’s book “The Trilaterals “.

      1. Yes, that it. A recommended read. Truly eye opening what they are, what they stand and why Starmer, Miliband (David) plus Kerr are members of it.

      2. Thanks Brian, always keen to read about what’s largely hidden from view, although I don’t go in for a lot of the conspiracy nuts, e.g. Alex Jones, David Icke, etc. Not saying they don’t ever have anything useful to say but it’s mostly unsubstantiated garbage, more to get attention than anything else.

        Having said that, conspiracy theories aren’t always to be dismissed lightly. Conspiracies have been around since time immemorial and many are very real indeed and need to be taken seriously. It’s just hard, sometimes, to differentiate fact from fiction.

    1. Thank you. I’d never heard of them so it was interesting. It sounds a bit like the time they all go off on a skiing holiday together and ‘sort out a lot of issues’ – like who is getting what and when. Most members you name are well understood to be hard right. Starmer must join as one of the Social Democrat Pretenders? They love them!

      1. Doug – I think that agreed timetable will mean that the donations will have already been registered with the Members Interests Committee. I’m not sure whether they’ve been published yet but the timing of their publication rests with the parliamentary authorities, not Starmer. I don’t know whether the current shut down of parliament will delay their publication.

      2. Not as far as I know but don’t hold your breath, you might suffocate!

    2. brianbotou – I ask what they have actually done or achieved in recent years and all I seem to have got is a membership list and a suggestion that I read a book. I went in search of the book you recommended on Amazon so that I could initially read the summary and some reviews. I was disappointed on 3 counts; The book was published 25 years ago. it costs £42.79 and there is no content description and no reader reviews.

      I’m not defending this organisation but merely seeking some actual evidence of what they have actually done. I am also more than a little surprised that if they’re really as big a threat as you portray why RLB failed to challenge KS on his membership of this organisation. Was she holding back in the hope of receiving her own invitation to join the club.

      1. SteveH, see the pdf link in my post above yours – the one you saw on Amazon is available to download for free.

        If you go to the authors wiki page there are several titles available on pdf.

      2. PW – Thanks for your help, I will download it and have a look. It’s unfortunate though that it was published a ¼ of a century ago so relevance of what it has to say may be questionable in today’s world.

      3. Also explains why I couldn’t find it as a book at first – I don’t use Amazon!

      4. You can read online. Look at PW address. You are missing the point, they have used Muslim proxy mercenaries to fight their wars in Afghanistan and now today in Syria, Lebanon, Yemen and elsewhere around the world. Moreover, if you had read my post properly you would have taken note of who were and are members and how they have and continue to affect policies around the world. Eg how very profitable it has been for corporations and these individuals around the world. For example, Neo Liberalism, for example Middle East resource wars which are about oil and who controls it. Namely the international oil companies whose CEOs are members of the Trilaterals today and so on. The book, one of a number, amounts to 168 pages. By the language you were using ie “bogey men “ it smacked of bias, holding pre conceived notions and anything but an open mind. Furthermore, you use the term a mere “ talking shop” which just by the who’s who that are meAgain, if you note RLB has fallen in lock step with Starmer, Nandy and a number of others about defending the Zionist apartheid state so no surprise she has taken up the fact that Starmer belongs to a right wing

  22. Steve H. Furthermore, you use the term a mere “ talking shop” which just by the who’s who that are members indicates through their actions it is indeed more than a mere “ talking shop”.

    Again, if you note RLB has fallen in lock step with Starmer, Nandy and a number of others in their defence of the Zionist Apartheid State so no surprise she taken up the fact that Starmer belongs to a right wing anti democratic organisation.

    In addition, you will also note that I said he was selected ( the only member out of parliament) not elected to this( in simple language facist)
    organisation. He was chosen by the Trilaterals for his sterling work as head of the prosecution services bending the knee to them over the continuing persecution of the political prisoner Julian Assange.The Trilaterals only select people who have a similar ideology to them, which he has in spades, and they can use. Just to reiterate, the policies of Clinton, Bush, Obama are still in play today, all are, except for Bush who is dead, members of the Trilaterals so the relevance of a 25 year old book describing and analysing this pernicious organisation is of continuing relevance today. Let’s hope, the members of the party who voted Starmer realise what an odious individual he really is!

    1. The only member of Parliament to be a member is very telling given his illustrious brother members. There are several neocon Brexiter Tories who are members of the Atlantic Council. I imagine we don’t hear that much about them and they don’t boast about their deeds, after all its secret isn’t it? N

      1. He has proven his worth and loyalty to Western imperialism who don’t want their crimes brought into the light and exposed. The Trilaterals is but one of a number of right wing anti democratic organisations. For example example, the Council on Foreign relations and the Atlantic council which is the propaganda organ of the Western imperialists using Muslim proxy mercenaries to fight their dirty little wars to enrich the major energy and resource based corporations.

  23. Starmer comes over to me as an absolute plank . Every quip can be tracked back to a stale historic headline or been said previously by someone else. It’s like he is being told what to say by his advisors and does not have an informed opinion of his own . It’s a worry we have a sponge like character trying to lead the biggest party in europe .I dont believe he is capable ,when the media start challenging him face on he will be exposed as a sham . I suspect in 12 months time we will have a leadership challenge .

    1. That was the largest SD party in Europe. It’s membership will likely decline rapidly to half the current total by say Christmas? Or more if the Blairites rub in their victory with a purge of members thought to be anti Israel. There’s isn’t much point fighting for a Party where the leadership is working to make SURE the election is lost – let alone give them money!!

Leave a Reply