comment

Labour rules mean Murray must be expelled for support of ‘Tinge’ party – or Starmer loses even semblance of credibility

Picture emerges of Scottish MP practising with other Labour quitters for launch of now-defunct rival party

‘Labour’ MP Ian Murray practising for ‘TIG’ launch

Right-wing Scottish Labour MP Ian Murray has been exposed as one of the quitters who set up the ‘Independent Group’ (later Change UK) party of MPs. A photo published in a book about the Labour Party shows Murray – who has also accepted funds from a Tory donor for his bid for the deputy leadership this year – practising for the new party’s launch – but he backed out at the last minute.

The group became known as the ‘Tinge’ party after one of its MPs described people of colour as having a ‘funny tinge’ and quickly fell apart, with some of its MPs joining the LibDems and all losing their seats at the general election. The SKWAWKBOX exclusively revealed the defections from Labour before they began – and the subsequent defection of at least one to the LibDems, although the revelations were rubbished widely until they proved true.

But Murray’s last-minute loss of nerve does not get him off the hook under Labour’s rules, which state:

A member of the Party who joins and/ or supports a political organisation other than an official Labour group or other unit of the Party, or supports any candidate who stands against an official Labour candidate, or publicly declares their intent to stand against a Labour candidate, shall automatically be ineligible to be or remain a Party member, subject to the provisions of Chapter 6.I.2 below of the disciplinary rules.

How can Murray’s participation in the formation of the group, which went as far as practising for its launch, is ‘support’? Under Labour’s rules he cannot remain as a Labour MP.

Labour leader Keir Starmer’s unwillingness to take action against former staff accused in a leaked report of racism and sabotaging the party’s electoral campaigns has turned many members against him who were originally willing to give him a chance to live up to his leadership campaign promises – and his response to anti-black racism has tarnished his wider image.

But with Labour already beginning to allow some of the personnel of the Tinge party to rejoin, in complete disregard for the party’s democratically-decided rulebook, if party leader Keir Starmer does not withdraw the whip from Murray after this revelation, he will lose even the shreds of his credibility in front of members.

The Labour Party was contacted for comment on Murray’s status as a Labour MP but was not ready to respond.

The SKWAWKBOX is provided free of charge but depends on the support 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 to set up a monthly donation via GoCardless (SKWAWKBOX will contact you to confirm the GoCardless amount). Thanks for your solidarity so SKWAWKBOX can keep bringing you information the Establishment would prefer you not to know about.

If you wish to republish this post for non-commercial use, you are welcome to do so – see here for more.

45 comments

  1. I’m no expert on the rule book but if Starmer allows Murray to remain – isn’t he also guilty of support for (at least a supporter of) another party?
    NEC! NEC! GET YOUR ARSES OVER HERE!

  2. Quite interesting how just about all of them were replaced by Jeremy’s Red Roses, Nadia, Zarah, Apsana, Bell, etc! Yet Heartlands were Lost! There should be a THOROUGH investigation into all those MPs who OPENLY SAID they will Canvas Against JC, into their Bank Accounts! They are not People who would happily lose £65K p/a just because they don’t like the LOTO! They are Neocon “Centrist” GREEDMONGERS, also what interference they had on Dennis, Laura P and Laura S’s Seats, it would’ve been highly suspicious if those 3 alone kept their Seats!

  3. What is the evidence that the picture is of a “preparatory launch event” or of Murray “practising for the new party’s launch” ? Is there a caption ? And what and who is the title and the author of mysterious “book about the Labour Party” that is cited ? Or is it all instead a pic of some normal kind of boring parliamentary seminar attractive to the PLP Right ? Without that evidence, the photo is…..just a photo.

    1. You obviously don’t come here very often or you would know Skwawky is meticulous in his ensuring that evidence he presents can be relied on.Either that or you are just another right wing shit engaging in what you hope is a water muddying exercise.My instincts tell me the latter is correct.

      1. Well, if Mr Walker is “meticulous” he can reply. I shall live in hope.

      2. Mr Murray met Hamas officials last year as part of a delegation of 12 British parliamentarians, including Parliamentary Labour Party chair Tony Lloyd MP and Liberal Democrat Parliamentary Party chair Lorely Burt MP.. Did Murray accuse Jeremy Corbyn of sympathising with Hamas or defend the media slurs ? No. Looks to me raising Murray to challenge Scottish Labour was part of the leadership pact. Preordained by Starmer and Labour first.

      1. Yes. I too have now seen the Labour List review, and assume the pic comes from that (I feel infamous) book written by people who are not – and never will be – people who have the interests of Labour at heart. I’ll probably never know, as I don’t intend to read it ! One line in the review is however important “Left Out’s authors don’t allow interviewees to take responsibility for recounting events accurately but prefer to tell the story themselves. This means we can’t judge as readers whether we trust their sources.” On that basis, and as Steve Walker has already criticised (rightly) the book for other errors and omissions, it seems odd, to say the least, that it is now being (albeit anonymously) endorsed here today.

      2. I won’t bother with that book, or the link

        …But I’ll press YOU to tell us what ‘angered’ you about labour under Corbyn…

        Let’s hear it, then?

    2. David Walsh 04/09/2020 AT 11:37 AM

      “Without that evidence, the photo is…..just a photo.”

      Jaysus!

      That’s WAYYYY beyond steve h levels of wilful ignorance and/or puerile contrarianism (If that’s a word).

      ”It just so happens that murray has been photographed on a lectern, giving a speech surrounded by the MPs who (Thankfully) sodded off to form their own little self-interested clique, but it’s all circumstantial”

      Your honour, the prosecution calls @brianbotou, resident statistics and probabilities ‘expert’, to provide us with the chances of the very same people being at a labour focus group conference, rather than a change uk (or whatever they call themselves) promo event, or some sort of meeting that undermined the labour party…

      1. “But I’ll press YOU to tell us what ‘angered’ you about labour under Corbyn ?” Sure, I’ll reply, even if Mr Walker doesn’t to my original question. Quite simply I was angered by our retreat from our elementary duty of internationalism in terms of abandoning our European sister parties in the builder of a fairer, social Europe in favour of a narrow “Lexit” nationalism that had Farage and co cheering from the sidelines. As it was put by a writer cited by another left blog today, on Europe, those around JC “stood on one side of the divide, while mobilised on the other was the Party’s base along with nearly everyone under 45 who wasn’t a Tory, a racist, a supporter of Farage, or all three.”

      2. Internationalism has long been eclipsed by globalism. “The narrow lexit nationalism” you speak of would have won the election and along with Europe enabled enlightened trade deals with African countries rather than the current reliance on America, the commonwealth and very likely Israel. The worst thing of all is Euro fanatics refuse to recognise that they cost Labour the election and will never admit that if we were still in Europe we would have a multi billion bill to pay for ECB bailouts for coronavirus.

      3. lundiel – “if we were still in Europe we would have a multi billion bill to pay for ECB bailouts for coronavirus.”

        Your claims are nonsense.
        We were never part of the Eurozone so why would we have any responsibility whatsoever for financing this Euro bailout when our currency is independent of the Euro.

      4. Gawd, more uncritical Starmerite, ignorant, pro-EU drivel from David Walsh. The utter myth of the entirely neoliberal EU being representative of some sort of progressive pro-worker ‘internationalism’, or even more ludicrously, really embodying that old con trick of Jacque Delors , ie the ‘Social Europe’ myth , is too historically and politically naïve to be taken seriously. That the majority of Labour’s overwhelmingly, relatively privileged, middle class, politically , at best, ‘Left Liberal, not socialist, membership fell for this hokum, and hence also fell for Starmer and Mandelson’s deliberately electorally suicidal Remain (in all but name) , and Second Referendum General Election ‘offer’, is a testament to the crap politics throughout the Labour Party !

        https://www.thefullbrexit.com/why-does-the-british-left-love-the-

      5. Wasn’t asking you OR Mr Walker about what angered you under Corbyn; I was asking resident stammer worshipper, steve h.

        As for your theory that Corbyn supporters stood on one side of the divide…are seriously suggesting that they were all over 45 Tory, racist and garage supported?

        Maybe if you’d have actually supported what was party policy to respect the referendum result , instead of allowing and encouraging cunts like starmer and Watson to conspire against and undermine him…

      6. Look it up for yourself. If we apply for an extension to the transition period, we will be forced to subsidise the EUs response to the pandemic. It has nothing to do with being a member of the Euro, this is a budget measure.
        You are so obsessed with the EU you won’t listen to the truth or reason.

      7. lundiel – “if we were still in Europe we would have a multi billion bill to pay for ECB bailouts for coronavirus.”

        It was you that refereed specifically to the European Central Bank bailouts which is as the name implies the central bank for the EuroZone. I freely admit that I don’t know all the details of what Boris and his F’wits have signed us up for but until you provide evidence to the contrary I’ll stand by my statement above that if we were still members of the EU we would not be liable for the cost of any ECB bailouts to the EuroZone.

      8. The EU is due to agree a new seven-year budget for the period from 2021 to 2027. Last week Ursula von der Leyen, the European Commission president, said the budget needs to “be completely different than how normally European budgets work”, including by paying out more grants in the first few years of the seven-year cycle.
        If we agree to a transition extension we will be bound by EU budgetary rules. The EU has through the ECB paid out billions in grants to poorer countries. Why should we have to help bail them out.

      9. lundiel – You specifically said “if we were still in the EU”, the whole point is that we are not still in the EU and therefore we no longer get to have a say. It was ‘the people’s choice’ apparently.
        The extension of the transition period is a very different proposition from the UK still being a member of the EU and to conflate the two is just silly.

      10. Wriggle and squirm all you like. As you said we have no say on European policy and would have to pay whatever they wanted. However, it won’t come to that because there won’t be an extension to the transition.

      11. lundiel – Which begs the question why are you still wittering on about something you claim isn’t going to happen. I’m not the one wriggling and squirming. Unlike you I haven’t had to change my stance.

      12. Err….because you said my claim was nonsense, then admitted you didn’t have clue what you were on about. You just had to defend the EU no matter what. You are a selfish, clueless, liberal idiot.

      13. lundiel – We obviously have radically different interpretations of what has actually been said in this particular exchange. However I’m still quite happy with the stance I’ve taken in pointing out that your original assertion was incorrect. I don’t see any point in discussing this any further because the evidence is there for everyone to see for themselves.

  4. Where does this leave RLB who supported Luciana Berger being welcomed back into the party after she had stood against the Labour Party in the last GE and also how does one square that Salma Yaqoob was admitted to Labour when she had not only stood against Naz Shaha in Bradford West but had also been a Respect Councillor but was also a senior figure in the Respect party.

    1. Leaves her sacked by the grerasy Easter Island-head for something other than she was actually sacked for – Remember?

      You’re all too obviously desperate to deflect any blame away from pro-european centrists because you’re on their side. It’s only a secret to you. Like stammer, you’d welcome them back in a heartbeat, but can’t possibly be seen to do so.

      So you’ve attempted to deflect, and to try to gain some credibility (Impossible, the infinitesimal amonut you once might’ve had, is well & truly shot to smithereens) you’ve turned what you desire as weapon against a so-called leftist MP – A convenient distraction away from your centrist europhilic agenda – or so YOU think.

      And by the way, before you start, RLB does NOT represent me in any way, shape or form. Got that?

      1. Toffee – Didn’t RLB actually engineer her own dismissal by pissing about and prevaricating over the taking down of a post that her boss had instructed her to delete. If not she exposed a worrying degree of naivety.
        No deflection was either intended or achieved, In fact it could be argued that your long winded diatribe in response is more of a deflection than my comment could ever have been on its own. I’m simply pointing out that this isn’t the first time that similar things have happened under various different administrations.
        Others who have commented on the rules being unfairly applied and interpreted are in many cases quite justified in their grievances but these practises have been going on for years under numerous administrations, the rule book has been written in a way that facilitates this.
        Labour has done this for as long as I can remember. One only has to look at many of the Composite Motions that have been passed at Conference over the years. Clarity has all too often been sacrificed on the alter of ‘faux unity’ so that all the factions could con themselves and each other that they’d all won and the leadership could just smugly ignore the membership safe in the knowledge that they can justify doing whatever they wanted to do in the first place on the back of the ambiguity. The Corbyn/Formby regime appear to have been particularly adept at this.

        If you have any evidence to verify your ridiculous fantasies about me supporting Luciana’s return to the party then please, please post it, if not please just do one and in the future leave me out of your disturbing fantasy world..

      2. Dafuq are you on about now, idiot? I mentioned NOTHING about berger – at least not specifically. Therefore, that’s a freudian slip on your part, knobhead.

        As for RLB, you’re welcome stick to your leader’s shithousery about it. Nobody expects you to do otherwise.

        ‘Long winded diatribe? And just HOW many words was your reply, clown?

        My 134 words to your OVER TWO HUNDRED and at least I write in paragraphs and use punctuation, you fucking poor excuse for an imbecile.

  5. fortunately the Labour rulebook doesn’t apply to ‘moderates’ where only the most draconian reading is fully applicable to the Labour left

    1. That raises a question – over the period of the antisemitism scam when LFI was attacking Corbyn and everyone on the left – did any MP’s quit LFI in protest?
      I don’t remember reading of any.
      You’d hope there might be ONE right winger with enough honour and courage to stand up for the truth whatever the cost wouldn’t you?

  6. ”or Starmer loses even semblance of credibility”

    Ermm…. WHAT ‘Semblance of credibility’ would that be, Skwawky?

  7. Starmer is a Zionist, therefore he already has credibility as a racist and NO credibility as a Socialist, he should be expelled.

  8. Yup, a dogs dinner. It’s all very well us demanding on social media about what Sir Stormer should do, but we may as well shout at the wall. The rule book means nothing except as a tool of discrimination these days.. We also know that the LP is run, it appears, by individuals appointed rather than elected, or fast tracked by the establishment.
    We know that Sir Stormer rewarded the racists at LP HQ. We know that rules are either made up or existing rules interpreted in the most bizarre manner. We know that the overwhelming majority in paid positions are quite happy with the new regime and we know that the LP isn’t likely to be any opposition, in the near or distant future, to corporate capitalism. It’s exactly what the establishment wanted, and have now got.
    We also know that motions/resolutions will be ignored that support democracy and accountability, that is if the LP ever opens up again. We know that many good socialists are being suspended and expelled by the individuals who are content with racism in the LP, but not socialist ideology.
    It’s their sense of entitlement y’see; and greed of course. Once elected they kick the ladder away and see themselves as representatives of the establishment, rather than representing ordinary working people and see no reason why they should be accountable or democratic..
    We also know that the fascist and reactionary organisations are gearing up and the LP will be absolutely incapable of challenging as the leadership is perfectly happy with capitalism; they’ve nothing better to offer than the Tories.
    Best start campaigning on issues cmds, like the cuts that are coming our way, cos the LP won’t. In fact, the LP will be implementing them at Council level. They’re sharpening their knives as we speak.

  9. Perhaps Steve could inform those of us who remain party members how, in the Starmer-locked-down party where CLPs are not allowed to function as local democracies, we can elevate this issue to ensure proper constitutional resolve.

    Members need a means to influence unaccountable party management, which has effectively suspended party democracy together with its means and methods and deliberately ostracised the entire membership.

    You can bet your last penny that the trilateral commission would not put up with deliberate ostracism of it by the Leader so meekly.

  10. Its strange that its taking so long to bring back Cockwombles can only assume EHRC report is fundamentally hamstrung by internal report
    As much use as a one legged man in an arse kicking contest, not worth the paper its written on

  11. “ Right-wing Scottish Labour MP Ian Murray has been exposed as one of the quitters who set up the ‘Independent Group’ (later Change UK) party of MPs. A photo published in a book about the Labour Party shows Murray – who has also accepted funds from a Tory donor for his bid for the deputy leadership this year – practising for the new party’s launch – but he backed out at the last minute. “

    Why did Murray ‘back out’? An assurance from the Trilateral Commission that their man, Nicely Nicely, would be home and dry once their friends in the billionaire press made sure that Jeremy Corbyn would lose the upcoming election and be forced to call a leadership election?

    Do we actually need evidence to support such a claim? I’d say not, Sir Nicely’s own leadership amounting to a resounding case for his immediate removal, which would be obvious And acute if Party Democracy had not been suspended by the Trilateral appointee.

  12. In the above article it says:

    ‘…. if party leader Keir Starmer does not withdraw the whip from Murray after this revelation, he will lose even the shreds of his credibility in front of members.’

    The thing is though that said credibility only applies to left-wing members, as right-wing members couldn’t give a flying fox if Starmer is completely devoid of credibility. Credibility and integrity in a leader would be regarded as highly disadvantageous by the right, and the last thing they would want in a leader of the party as such!

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: