Analysis Breaking comment

Breaking: Starmer takes ‘purely political’ decision to withdraw whip from Corbyn – but doesn’t have the courage to say so

Labour rules restored whip to Corbyn the moment suspension was lifted – Starmer has now withdrawn it – contrary to his commitment to implement the EHRC report – but doesn’t present it that way

Keir Starmer has this morning withdrawn the Labour ‘whip’ from his predecessor Jeremy Corbyn – and did it in the most cowardly manner possible.

Starmer said:

I have taken the decision not to restore the whip to Jeremy Corbyn. I will keep this situation under review.

But under Labour’s rules, the whip was restored to Corbyn automatically the moment the suspension was lifted – unanimously – by a right-dominated panel of National Executive Committee (NEC) members.

Weasel-wording does not change facts.

Starmer’s decision is ‘purely political’, as a Jewish former LOTO staffer explained to Radio 4 this morning:

Starmer responded to the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) report, which banned all ‘political interference’ in disciplinary decisions, by saying that he would implement the report in full.

Now, because of pressure from hypocritical right-wingers who think political interference is just fine when it suits their purposes, he has withdrawn the whip.

Not ‘decided not to reinstate it’ – that wasn’t his decision. Withdrawn it.


The SKWAWKBOX needs your help. The site 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.


    1. Jeremy has been tricked and deceived by Starmer and Evans and Co, and whilst WE may know that the whip is automatically restored when someone is reinstated, the vast majority of the general public are not aware of that and, as such, they are left believing – have been duped into believing – that even though the NEC reinstated him, Starmer has decided – two days later – not to restore the whip to Jeremy (and so he can’t sit as a Labour MP). And it’s nothing to do with Starmer not having any courage – as it says in the headline to this article – but EVRYTHING to do with Starmer and Evans TRICKING Jeremy, and tricking him in such a way that Jeremy could never have forseen.

      But ask yourself this: Why would Starmer wait TWO days to do so if that REALLY was the way it works! He would of course have done it in a matter of hours (after the NEC reinstated Jeremy), but it’s all part of their game and, apart from anything else, both the ‘reinstatement’ AND ‘withdrawing the whip’ episodes get maximum media coverage by leaving it for two days – ie ‘executing’ them two days apart. And needless to say, Starmer and Co planned it ALL in advance, and more-than-likely did so even before they suspended Jeremy!

  1. I’m guessing Keir Starmer has made a political calculation on whether the continuing distraction of Jeremy will be a political liability or asset at the LA elections next year and at the next GE.

    1. Starmer initiated the distraction. He could have ignored Corbyn’s original statement. He chose not to do so, and has continued his campaign against Corbyn (for that is what it is) because he has a wider agenda – to cower the Labour Left and with it, support for Palestinians. It’s his badge of support for the Washington Consensus, which Corbyn had threatened (and by his very membership of the Labour Party,, continues to do so).

      Starmer was elected on a dishonest prospectus.

      1. Paul – For you to make such a ridiculous statement. Then I guess you didn’t watch Starmer’s press conference on the EHRC report.
        You should perhaps be asking yourself why Corbyn an experienced politician couldn’t find an acceptable form of words when he made his statements before Keir’s press conference. When you are contemplating this you should take into consideration that Keir personally called Jeremy on the Wednesday evening to make sure that Jeremy clearly understood that the Labour Party was going to accept the EHRC report in full and without reservation. Then on the Thursday morning before JC released his statement the Deputy Leader and her team were in direct contact with Jeremy and made it very clear to him that his proposed statement was unacceptable and yet Jeremy decided to go ahead regardless. Why?
        What was the positive outcome that he hoped to achieve by forcing this confrontation.
        Unlike yourself (and perhaps many others on here) I think that there is only one person to blame for Jeremy’s current predicament and that is Jeremy Corbyn.

      2. Paul – With the exception of your daft conspiracy theories I have already responded to your assertions. If you are waiting for me to join you down your 🐰🕳 then you are in for a very long wait. Don’t hold your breath.

      3. SteveH, you take Starmer’s word as gospel – we don’t.
        You think if he decides, probably for family reasons, to accept without reservation the EHRC and IHRA dictats he has the right to bind the whole party to that ridiculously ill-conceived suicide pact.
        You also think he’s entitled to silence dissenting voices on pain of banishment from, in some cases, members’ whole social lives.
        ‘Shunning’ is characteristic of certain religions, one of which Starmer has married into.
        Just like BloJob should not be entitled to fire whoever he chooses to save Princess Fucknuts’ blushes, Starmer should not be entitled to remove the whip from Corbyn for personal reasons – for example to keep his wife’s rabbi from shunning his family to protect a stupid fake religion from criticism.
        That applies to all stupid fake religions.
        Remove all religions, their power-hungry priests and their stupid, gullible believers from politics.
        Politics is too important to allow imbeciles anywhere near it.

      4. David – Just like BloJob should not be entitled to fire whoever he chooses to save Princess Fucknuts’ blushes, Starmer should not be entitled to remove the whip from Corbyn for personal reasons – for example to keep his wife’s rabbi from shunning his family to protect a stupid fake religion from criticism.
        Certainly not the coolest move you’ve ever made.

    2. Rather than make more shithouse excuses and projections thatwil neither convince nor turn out to be correct, you ought to look at who’s making antisemitism the ONLY issue that actually gets some sort of action from stammer …And he even gets that wrong ffs.

      1. Paul Smith18/11/2020 AT 12:24 PM
        Steve H (below) needs to address what I have argued.

        You’re new here, I take it?

      2. How can telling the truth be an unacceptable form of words?

      3. Ludus57 18/11/2020 at 3:55 pm
        How can telling the truth be an unacceptable form of words?
        That’s not what I said, Jeremy was told that his response was unacceptable not that the truth was unacceptable. He self evidently managed to find a form of words that was acceptable yesterday, why wasn’t he prepared to do the same last week.

    3. … and possibly not considered that legal action by Corbyn would lead to damages and costs in his favour.

      Forensic Schtarmer is getting his briefs (apologies) in a twist.

    4. SteveH, Starmer has made the wrong decision, he is encouraging factionalism within the Labour Party, by withdrawing the Whip from Corbyn.
      He is pandering to the right within the PLP rather than choosing to upheld the decision reach by an NEC panel and draw a line.
      Is he going to push for the resignation of David Evans? This is a mess that Evans created when in his wisdom Evans by-passed the NEC and suspended Corbyn with total disregard for the Rules of the Labour Party.
      At this moment in time, Starmer isn’t pleasing the right and isn’t pleasing the left, he is leading a Party in which the main two factions are putting opposing demands on him as a leader and it isn’t a way that he can please both.
      Starmer has made his choice clear by suspending the whip from Corbyn, this is only confirming in the eyes of Corbyn’s supporters that LOTO is interfering in the disciplinary process and Starmer cannot be trusted.
      However, the right within the PLP isn’t happy that Corbyn is back in the Party and would carry on demanding that Corbyn gets expelled and all the members suspended from defending Corbyn to stay suspended.
      This is a mess, that Starmer thanks to Evans cannot sort. I believe that the days of Starmer as leader of the Party are in a countdown. I can foresee a leadership contest next summer at the latest. I can actually see the right of the PLP challenging Starmer for the leadership.

      1. Maria – You are of course entitled to your beliefs, but I would contend that it was Jeremy Corbyn that initiated this particular bout of factionalism. I suggest you reread my initial post at 11:31and my follow up response to Paul Smith.

      2. Doug – Is that you again with another sad little distraction.

      3. SteveH, so Starmer and Rayners called Corbyn and what? Does Corbyn has to toe the line? Since when the right of the Party has toed the line? Hence, why to expect that Corbyn would do as he is told?
        Why or why, Starmer expected from Corbyn a man of principle and a honour no to defend himself and give his views?
        How has more to lose in this situation Starmer or Corbyn? Hence, Starmer shouldn’t have started this civil war, should have allowed Corbyn to have his say and move on. After all Corbyn was accepting that antisemitism has to be combated within the Labour Party.
        Now Starmer double down by withdrawing the whip from Corbyn, trying to appease the right wing of the Party, that I seriously doubt is going to be appeased and eventually will turn on Starmer.

      4. Maria – Perhaps the question you should be asking yourself is who is more important Corbyn (an MP who is unlikely to stand at the next election) or the Labour Party and those who rely on a Labour government to improve their life chances.
        You can talk all you want about high ideals but the fact remains that Corbyn has been forced to capitulate anyway, and look where he’s landed himself now.

      5. Like the good little black propagandist paid shill he is, ‘SteveH’ turns reality on its head so that he can blame the victim!

      6. Allan – You’re response comes as no surprise you’ve been the one advocating for years that he bows to the inevitable by lying prostrate before the MSM.
        I’m simply putting the blame where I think it lies on this ccasion.

    5. I think you might be distracted by the stampede of members leaving,Thats an extra right wing doner for every 4000thousand leaving you with a shortfall of half the membership gone ..before you sit down with mum for your Xmass din dins Really forensic science here with your knight of the realm and his counting ability…Better get them colouring books and the crayons knocked out at a discount down Peckham market or maybe Romford mkt..Really Steve that Rodney really is a “plonker” mate…innit?

      1. SteveH – Its all very well demanding answers from Maria, but what is your answer to former Labour voters in the Red Wall constituencies, generally represented by “centrist”, but actually right wing MPs, who did nothing to improve their situation over the years?
        Labour is at a crossroad moment. Do we look to the path of social progress, or follow the path of regression offered by the likes of Starmer and his Blairite acolytes?

      2. Ludus57 – It may have escaped your notice but Labour have been out of power for 10 years and when the Red Wall voters were finally given the option of a manifesto that addressed their concerns and would have increased the life chances of their families and the prosperity of their communities they chose to punish Labour for the austerity that the Tories had subjected them to for a decade by voting for Boris.

      3. Joseph
        SteveH is lying to us on Membership numbers, be surprised if its not 200,000 below JC at his finest
        This decision goes back to NEC, if its not sorted and before any of the legal challenges happen, mass resignation is a perfectly good tactic to get rid of Cockwombles
        Then again 3 biggest unions could do it with one conference call

      4. Doug – I have never lied about the membership numbers. I have simply reported numbers that were published by members of the NEC and other sources and I have wherever possible provided links.

    6. SteveH, I agree with Ludus57 instead of asking me to reply your question, why don’t you try to reply him instead? What it is clear to me is that the right ot the Party sabotaged Corbyn’s chances and with their sabotage stopped thousands of peoples hopes for a better life.
      When you say a Labour government, what type of Labour government? You don’t appear to appreciate that Blair failures to tackle the structural problems of inequality (it actually increased under Labour) the Labour Party paved the road to Brexit.
      Hence, I don’t believe a Labour Party of the Tory lite persuasion is going to achieve much to tackle the structural problem and give solutions.
      You just need to look how much people care for the NHS, Labour greatest achievement, where is Sure Start? Even the Good Friday Agreement is under threat. Atlee and Bevan built in stone for decades the welfare state created by them endured until Thatcher started to dismantle it. In contrast Blair built on sand.
      I am afraid you aren’t going to be able to blackmail people like me into guilt. We know the right of the Party sabotaged Corbyn,
      Hence, Starmer has a decision to make: stand by the promises made at the hustings and protect Corbyn’s legacy and implement Corbynism without Corbyn or otherwise, be prepared to lose electoral ground.
      After all we have by far lesser number of MPs to protect, I am prepared to support the campaigns of the SCG MPs the other MPs have to decide if Starmer is going to help them keep their seats by engaging in the folly of battling the left, when the left has not desire to challenge his leadership.
      However, both you and him should be very clear that we are going not going to stand down and allow him to placate the right.and return to the bland policies of Tory lite.

      1. Maria – Unlike yourself I’ve made my position quite clear. Do you have a sensible question you’d like to ask.

      2. SteveH, my position is very clear too, no that I expect you to appreciate it. I find ironic you talking about been sensible.
        What was sensible about pursuing the mirage of the People’s Vote? I am saying this at someone that is pro-EU but politically sophisticated enough to realise the People’s Vote was a con the right of the Labour Party used to cause division among Corbyn’s supporters.
        Thanks to you (and others) been “sensible” we are on the road to hell to leave the EU without a deal.
        Sensible indeed!!!

    1. Well Jeremy’s little appeasement speech didnt work,what a surprise not.These right wing destroyers are not going to miss a chance to bury the spiritual leader of Socialism in the Labour party.How often have we seen Corbyn try to work with the enemy and negotiate.Somtimes a leader needs to pull the trigger and Jeremy would never do that.Corbyn could have picked this battle of his time and choosing,now the knight gets to make a killing spree on his terms.and we can be sure of a very public execution and a witchunt.And were will the No holding back group be ?

      1. More black propaganda lies and shit from Okeefe, who is fully aware that Jeremy was conned and deceived by Starmer and Evans and the Blairites, and Joe will of course continue to dissemble his fake narrative on here like the good little fascist shill that he is.

        Needless to say, he will just spew forth generalisations, but avoid specifics, precisely because there ARE no specifics. If, as he obviously WAS, Jeremy was contacted prior to Tuesday and told that if he could clarify and confirm in a public statement that he was not implying in his original statement that the ‘concern’ about A/S in the party has been overstated, then the problem of his suspension could probably be resolved. And so he did, and posted it on FB on Tuesday morning, and the shills were straight on to it, deliberately and fraudulently conflating what he said on Tuesday with what he said initially, so as to make it look to readers of skwawkbox that Jeremy had done a volte face so as to get himself reinstated. He did NOT, and Okeefe and the other shills on here are lying through thier teeth and trying to deceive you into believing that Jeremy ISN’T the man of integrity and high principles you thought he was.

        He *IS*, and it’s the shills and the tricksters who are completely devoid of integrity and principles!

      2. Allan – Whilst I agree that he hasn’t really shifted his position at all (is that part of the problem) he has now presented his views in a more acceptable way. Hence the NEC decision to readmit him provided he accepted their sanction.
        One has to wonder why Jeremy decided to persist with his unnecessary intervention on the day of the EHRC report.
        What did he hope to achieve.

    2. J penny…thats already been covered by Squawkbox,but anybody joining up with the lib dems is into the fire after jumping out of the frying pan.Not the best example of a clean break with the right wing.

      1. Lancaster is run by a coalition of Labour Greens and Lib Dems so the new group are not “joining up with the lib dems” but rather asserting that they are socialists, whist remaining in the same ruling coalition.

    1. Yes, Noel, we’re all aware of little steven’s inadequacies; what about stammer?

  2. Absolutely disgusting but it will probably back fire on Starmer. People will look at what Jeremy said, evaluate it and reach their own conclusions They will also consider recent the very harsh words of the President of the Board of Deputies , wonder if this affected Starmer’s decision. They way conclude that it did and ask themselves if they really want any right wing religious group -be it the Board of Deputies, the Synod of Bishops The College of Cardinals, The Muslim Council- to have a major say in the running of our political party. I think the answer to that will be a resounding NO. The Labour party should be non sectarian and welcoming to all including those who have deeply held religious views but we should not be dictated to by anybody representing or claiming to represent the views of a particular religion or special interest group. That is not how democracy works.

    1. Smartboy the Catholic church do not allow political activism in England,they have learnt there lesson from the Reformation and are still not fully accepted in the laws of the country.Priests and politics dont mix,Cant think of the name of the leader of the old ban the bomb movement,but he was forced out of the priesthood for is activism The name west comes to mind.?

      1. You mean Bruce Kent, I think. .He is still with us, aged 91

      2. D’oh!

        Well yeah, it’s Bruce Kent…Just makin’ sure, y’know?!

      3. Monsignor Bruce Kent. He also got married, so politics may not have been the only issue.

      4. Thank you for this Joseph – I didn’t know Catholic clergy were not allowed to participate in politics – it would be a very good thing if that applied to all religious figures. Then we might be spared the unedifying sight of the Chief Rabbi gloating about the part he played in the Tory victory at the last election.

    2. Agreed, Smartboy, this is a mess of David Evans doing and Starmer cannot sort it. On the one hand he has the BoD making demands and on the other one, the Muslim Council making demands too, that are exclusive of each other. He cannot possible please both lobbies.

    3. Bruce Kent…I know I am getting old when I discounted that name thinking Surley Superman didnt work for the Catholic church…just a lesson in how wrong I can be boys?…and a monsignor as well ..didnt know he was French but certainly looked like Superman…!thanks for all the help folks!

    4. Agree Smartboy, but I don’t think it’s any longer a case of what the LP should be. It’s too far down the road for that. The Labour Party isn’t something I’d touch with a barge pole. It’s become a (not very funny) joke under Starmer, and having reverted to being a RW soft Tory organisation has I’m afraid reverted to type. The Corbyn socialist revolution was quickly and ruthlessly snuffed out, now they want to snuff him out too. Very sad.

  3. Nail…coffin…final…it’s clear that for Labour as currently constituted the interests of imperialism, spearheaded by a Zionist fifth column, trump those of the British working class.

    “Though cowards flinch and traitors sneer, we’ll keep the red flag flying here”


  4. Like most power hungry dictators Starmer uses the rule book when it suits him and ignores it when it does not.

    1. Thanks …my fellow French resident and I must say a very frank assessment of the Socialist revival that wasn’t.ITs basically telling us to get stuck in whichever side of the tent we are in.?

  5. @SteveH: “… the Deputy Leader and her team were in direct contact with Jeremy and made it very clear to him that his proposed statement was unacceptable and yet Jeremy decided to go ahead regardless. Why?”

    Maybe JC has decided that he’s not taking any more crap. No more Mr Nice Guy. Apart from that he’s probably taken legal advice that tells him he has got the law & the LP Rule Book on his side. Why? – why the hell should he back down?

    1. …. and look how waiting untill he’s lost the leadership before taking a stand has worked out for him and he’s still sort of capitulated.

      1. It’s not looking that good for Schtarmer. He’s the one digging a hole for himself & the LP & showing that he’s not really a shrewd political operator. His days are numbered.

  6. No one is leaving the party, stand by your beds and keep your powder dry
    The NEC can now convene to consider what is a political decision, they have the power to throw it out
    Some of you are right about Evans and Starmer, they will both be out on their ears before too long

  7. I have been thinking this over and it seems to me that withdrawing the Labour whip means that Jeremy can no longer avail of the allowances made by parliament to political parties. This money is given to party HQs who use it to pay for staff, office premises etc. Some of it goes to MPs, the Leaders office etc. As I recall HQs withheld this money from Jeremy when he was first elected leader and he had to pay his staff costs out of his own pocket. This could be history repeating itself if my understanding of the situation is right. Can Skwawkbox or any of our comrades please confirm the position in respect of the financial detriment Jeremy may suffer as a result of this vicious and totally unnecessary action by Starmer.

    1. Jeremy is a backbench MP and he will be entitled to just the same entitlements from the parliamentary authorities as every other backbench MP is.

      1. That’s not what I meant Steve H – As I understand it money is made available to political parties to help them to function .MPs get their salary and expenses but as far as I know the money for the renting of premises in the constituency, office staff etc comes from the communal fund allocated to the party. It was this money that was withheld from Jeremy( by Southside under Iain McNichol) when he was first elected leader and he had to meet his office running costs out of his own pocket. If he has lost the whip this money will once again be withheld from him and once again he will have to pay his staff ,rent etc himself. If I am right about this then it is nothing short of disgraceful and typical of the petty vindictiveness at the heart of right wing Labour.

  8. Starmer showing how fearful he is of a socialist man with integrity and compassion …qualities he never could aspire to. Karma.

    1. Norma – Or alternatively Keir Starmer has just made a political decision on whether the continuing distraction of Jeremy will be a political liability or an asset at the LA elections next year and at the next GE.
      If Jeremy had made the effort a few days ago to find an acceptable form of words instead of going for confrontation then non of this messy distraction would have occurred.

      1. SteveH
        Equates to children throwing stones being shot in the head
        Twas their fault or was it Hamas wot killed them
        Congratulations you are now officially a bottom feeder

      2. Keir Starmer cannot be unaware of the deep affection and admiration many of us at grassroots level have for Jeremy Corbyn both on a personal level and politically. He chooses to ignore this at his peril.

      3. Smartboy – As I’ve said elsewhere – Perhaps the question you and others should be asking yourselves is who is more important Corbyn who will never return to frontline politics and who is unlikely to stand at the next general election or the Labour Party and those who rely on a Labour government to improve their life chances.
        it may be time to re-examine your priorities

      4. Reply to Steve H at 4,06
        When a group of people set out to destroy another human being then it is something that concerns us all because if it is Ok to do it to Jeremy Corbyn today it will be all right to do it to me tomorrow and you the next day. When we don’t stand up for the rights of one person we are grinding the rights of the rest of us into the ground. Jeremy Corbyn has been subjected to a concerted hate campaign the like of which I have never witnessed and which involved his own parliamentary colleagues as well as the establishment and their lackeys .He took all they had to throw at him, never descended into the gutter with his critics never got personal about any of them and showed them how a socialist and a gentleman behaves. That is why he is head and shoulders above the rest in the opinion of many of us.
        Regarding a Labour Government – If it is the sort of government which does not oppose welfare cuts which will plunge the poorest in society into even greater poverty, if it introduces legislation that will deny them a university education because they will be unable to afford it , if it is a Labour government which engages in war mongering and which opposes free speech and the principle of universal human rights then I’ll not mourn its loss if that’s the way it works out in 2024.

      5. Smartboy – “He took all they had to throw at him, never descended into the gutter with his critics never got personal about any of them and showed them how a socialist and a gentleman behaves.”
        Which is one of the reasons he failed as leader of the Labour Party.
        Whilst I agree with you about the assault on Corbyn I have seen no evidence whatsoever that a Starmer led Labour government would adopt the policies you are ‘asserting’ that they would.

      6. Reply to Steve H
        Clearly you think being a guttersnipe is a perquisite of government – if you are right then we have a vast supply of potential PMs – Jess Phillips springs to mind instantly

      7. Smartboy – Not at all, I’m just saying that Jeremy unfortunately lacked the leadership skills required for the job.

  9. “Am I leading a rebellion, that you have come with swords and clubs? Every day I was with you in the temple courts, and you did not lay a hand on me. But this is your hour when darkness reigns”. JC

  10. What Corbyn said was far too mild. It is not the case that the claims of anti-Semitism are exaggerated but that the central claim, that Labour is “institutionally anti-Semitic” if bogus, factitious and without evidence, especially from the EHRC report. The one thing the report establishes beyond question is that Labour is not “institutionally anti-Semitic”. They managed to find only two instances of possible legal breaches during the period 2011-2018. Both those possible breaches are highly dubious. They rest on a precise form of words: “unwanted comment/conduct related to Jewish ethnicity.” In both cases it is not Jewish ethnicity which would find the conduct or comment unwanted, but a particular political point of view. The report falls into the anti-Semitism is seeks to expose by attributing the same assumed reactions to all Jews. Many Jews were not offended by Livingstone’s comments or Pam Bromley’s posts. Right-wing, Zionist Jews are. The report subsumes all Jews to a category, the essential strategy of racism. Note that the period in question covers four years when Corbyn was not leader. There were 220 complaints in total, and average of c 30 a year. Thus, perhaps 120 from the years before Corbyn’s leadership. Was Miliband anti-Semitic too? Further, no one has adduced any evidence that most Labour members are anti-Semitic, which would have to be true to make the Party “institutionally” racist. That’s what the McPherson report argued: that racism was everywhere in the Met. Most Met officers exhibited racism to some degree. Hodge claims Labour is rife with anti-Semitism. Is that true in Barking? Why did the members in Barking select her? Why did the Labour voters elect her? How can that be consonant with a Party which is anti-Semitic to the core? Ellman was selected by her CLP for more than three decades. Why if they are anti-Semites? Also, Labour members are drawn from Labour voters. For most members to be anti-Semites it would have to follow that many Labour voters are? Where is the evidence? And who dares say that? Not the BoD, nor LFI, nor Hodge, nor Ellman, nor Mann, nor Starmer. There is simply no evidence. Look at the time and place the major accusation was made: after Corbyn defeated Smith and on Sky News. That is not accidental. This is confected. Notice that everyone who backs the claims of “institutional anti-Semitism” is an apologist for Israel and Israel is a racist State. That is not interpretation, it is fact. Here we have Zionist racists accusing everyone who criticises them of racism. Anyone who thinks this isn’t a witch hunt needs to re-read The Crucible three or four times. Hysteria is abroad. What we need is empiricism. Evidence. As far as the central accusation goes, there is none.

    1. Like the comment by Frank Dallas above, as well as those by Maria Vasquez Ludus 57 and Paul Smith on this thread.

  11. Jeremy should join the workers party, pity he tried to hold hand and sing kumbayar with the right of the Labour party. He should have been just as ruthless, kicked them out when he had the chance.

  12. SteveH: “I’m just saying that Jeremy unfortunately lacked the leadership skills required for the job.”
    Starmer so far has shown himself to be a complete sellout, a neoTory and a total wanker.
    Great skillset – he’ll go far – right up Johnson’s and the chief rabbi’s arses.
    Fuck’em all. You too.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: