Starmer’s withdrawal of the whip this week broke every PLP procedural rule – but Corbyn’s original suspension also appears to have thrown out the party rule-book
The SKWAWKBOX revealed last night that Keir Starmer’s decision to withdraw the Labour whip (not the cowardly ‘not restore‘) from Jeremy Corbyn, after an NEC panel unanimously reinstated the former party leader, breached multiple requirements of the parliamentary party’s procedural rules.
Corbyn was suspended for commenting on the real level of antisemitism in the Labour Party – a comment that was entirely factual, as the party leadership acknowledged – even though the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) report stated explicitly that he was allowed to say what he said.
But the EHRC report also lays out the powers that the leader and general secretary of the Labour Party have and do not have – and those details make clear that the decision to suspend Corbyn in the first place was also against the party’s rules.
Page 50 of the report makes explicitly clear that Keir Starmer does not have any business interfering in the outcome of individual complaints – which the withdrawal of the whip after Corbyn’s reinstatement unquestionably represents. But it also states that neither ‘LOTO’ nor the general secretary has any power to suspend or expel any member of the party – only the National Executive Committee (NEC) and National Constitutional Committee (NCC) have that power:
The same section also says it is the leader’s responsibility to make sure formal procedures are properly followed, making Starmer’s disregard for the rules even more inexcusable.
Those defending Evans and Starmer over Corbyn’s suspension have claimed that the party’s rules mean that the NEC’s power had been delegated to Evans as general secretary, based on a rule that says the NEC may delegate some of its powers to the general secretary:
C. General Secretary
i. There shall be a General Secretary of the Party who shall be appointed in accordance with the provisions set out in procedural rule Chapter 4.II.4.A below. The General Secretary shall act as secretary to the NEC.
ii. For the avoidance of doubt, wherever in this rule book or upon instruction or delegation by the NEC, or a committee or sub-committee thereof, the General Secretary has a function to discharge, she or he may delegate the discharge of such function to such appropriate officer or designated representative of the Party as she or he shall see fit. Further, the General Secretary shall be deemed always to have had the power so to delegate.
In other words, if the NEC decides to delegate any authority to the general secretary, the general secretary can in turn delegate it to someone else.
But the EHRC report also kills that claim, pointing out that since September last year, even starting an investigation has to be signed off by members of Labour’s Governance and Legal Unit (GLU) – and that suspensions must be authorised by the unit’s director:
Page 37 of the report
The NEC’s power to suspend has been delegated – but not to David Evans.
The EHRC document that Starmer and Evans have committed to implement in full:
- bans interfering in disciplinary outcomes
- explicitly says that neither Starmer nor Evans have any power to suspend or expel
- equally explicitly says that if any authority has been delegated by the NEC to take disciplinary action, it has not been delegated either to Starmer nor to Evans
The Labour leadership’s promise to implement the EHRC report is in tatters – and it was shredded within a few hours of the report’s publication, by their actions against the party’s former leader. If, as many predict, Corbyn pursues legal action against them he will have ample grounds – and the EHRC will effectively be a key witness.
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.
The forensic fool has got himself into a real mess. No easy way out. He’s summed out on his summing up.
His rushes to Judgment is a sign of weakness and that’s compounded by a total failure of charisma. Starmer is a proper stuffed shirt, a straw man, a mumbling bore. The very idea of him inspiring anybody is laughable. Election winner? I think not.
Absolutely correct. Jeremy should go to the High Court to get this abuse of process revoked immediately. Make the urbane Sir Keir look a complete idiot and a hypocrite to boot as well as costing the Labour corporates a lot of money. Everyone agrees Jeremy’s treatment by the new regime is an utter disgrace irrespective of their view of his effectiveness as a leader. Jeremy should take out an injunction to stop these silly games at once, then go for restoration of his full membership of the PLP.
Starmer was told how high to jump by the Israel Lobby. He jumped and landed in a corner.
Jeremy, for once, accept the member’s faith in you and use your fighting fund!
As you know Jack, the ‘fighting fund’ was started specifically in respect of John Ware’s threat to sue Jeremy. And Starmer is fully on side with the Israel Lobby et al, and they DON’T have to tell him ANYTHING, no more than they would have to tell Tony Blair anything.
So what happens now
How the absolute feck did stammer even pass his 11+, nevermind his bar exam? I can only imagine that it’s for the same reason he acts like an old etonian. Utterly f’ing clueless AND useless, with a heightened sense of entitlement and megalomania only found in the ‘nobility’.
An establishment wrong’un if there ever was one. His hatred of anything that Corbyn stands for speaks louder than stammer screaming at the top of his voice through a loudhailer that’s being amplified by another loudhailer in front of that first one.
A sad indictment on politics in this country if the choice is down to him and the total imcompetent that’s already bollocksing the nation.
Them as can do, them as can’t don’t. If Starmer were a competent barrister why isn’t he practicing?
As I’ve said before, the law requires much memory but little intellect.
If you can remember what you just read – you too can be a lawyer.
It does require the intellect of strategy, wit and a Spark! All very much lacking in the knighted QC which is a pity for the LP as the same qualities make good political leaders. He’s now on a steady descent into infamy.
People I’ve spoken to who knew him professionally all report his utter DULLNESS as an Advocate.
That’s why he became an administrator at the DPP. The natural limit of his charisma is assistant to the controller of the stationery cupboard.
Oh it’s not confined to his advocacy.
Christ, stammer makes the likes of michael aspel and martin jarvis look positively hyper-ebullient.
His hatred of anything that Corbyn stands for
Should read: ‘His hatred of any sort of equality, that Corbyn stands for…’
I really am baffled by Starmer, irrespective of what his policies are (who knows what they are because he has never made a policy statement since he was elected leader?). Can he not understand that the first thing to do when you are in a hole is to stop digging?
He probably has not got the emotional maturity. Ut it set es him right.
Time for Haredim Kier to grow a pair and fall on his sword. He is no socialist, so why is he in Labour? Is he determined to reduce Labour to be a non effective opposition to the Conservative Fascist Party and continue to assist with the on-going draining of The Treasury into the pockets of business friends and Conservative MP’s pockets?
Doubts cast on NEC Elections on BBC website
300 votes not counted, Temporary Embarrassment’s man won by 200 votes for Welsh rep
Red Tories
Cheap and Nasty and corrupt
SteveH
Your boy is going to join Trumpton and Netanyahoo in Guantanamo
I’ve just been watching series 4 of the crown, something I didn’t think I’d like but is very good. I think Stalin watched it too and decided to take a leaf out of Thatcher’s book in the hope of looking decisive when in fact he actually appears to be open to manipulation and following orders.
Lundiel, really! Subscribing to elitist tv channels? For heritage-themed entertainment? There goes the street cred…😉
Reply to Doug.
Nothing probably. Same as nothing happens when disabled members are abused by local councilors as in Wavertree. Or when a myriad of other rule breaches and abuse of power occur or when good people are expelled on the basis of outright lies Don’t expect any justice, fairness or democracy in the LP.
It’s a club for career seeking gobshites where democracy and natural justice don’t have any place whatsoever. The same gobshites make the rules as they go along without accountability. Flawed election processes, under which our new MP where selected, don’t seem to matter. The Region decides, not the members. Complaints met with the response, ‘tough” I’m not kidding.
Surely people didn’t believe the stuff in the rules and constitution about a ‘bottom up, not top down’ approach? These slimy specimens would side with fascists before they accepted democracy.
It’s a club for career seeking gobshites where democracy and natural justice don’t have any place whatsoever. The same gobshites make the rules as they go along without accountability. Flawed election processes, under which our new MP where selected, don’t seem to matter.
https://images.app.goo.gl/FEe1Gpv6yh1SybSF6
“Those defending Evans and Starmer over Corbyn’s suspension have claimed that the party’s rules mean that the NEC’s power had been delegated to Evans as general secretary, based on a rule that says the NEC may delegate some of its powers to the general secretary”
Complete BS since David Evans refused to answer questions from the NEC re. why Corbyn was suspended. Some clearly do not have a clue how delegation works and who is in charge.
Sorry, typing on mobile. It was meant to read: And it serves him right….
So Swarky, I want to hear you on LBCs Mick Ferrari show or any of the presenters to put across this argument. It might not go out on MSM but you can make it be known on LBC! I have heard JVL have the courage to speak in defence if the facts but where are you?
Cindy, TOTALLY yes. Not necessarily SB editor as always best to share tasks. Let people play to their individual strengths.
Evidence that demolishes the A/S lies are abundant and opportunities to put them forward in a sustained way to the WIDE public have been lamentably neglected.
I was about to comment re this SB post, then thought, why bother, but you Cindy proves there are a few who value the basics. It is pathetic to moan about the repeated lies, yet our big wigs fail to use AMPLE opportunities to put their side. And on the rare occasions when they come out of hiding, i hear they go on the BBC esp TV. Even Dominic Cummings know that the BBC is not a good use of time.
ALWAYS choose the written word or radio. I will ONLY recommend LBC Iain Dale, Andrew Pierce or BloJob’s sister. NO ONE ELSE on LBC. All the other “presenters” are overrated operated uncouth browbeats.
On Talkradio, only Mike Graham is worth time. One does not need hosts with whom we agree. We need to be prepared and assertive with sound arguments. The host should be sufficiently well mannered to allow us to speak.
Justin was EXCELLENT on LBC. Do check for date & minute details which i posted at the time. White Flag Man keeps a log of posts… oh and SH, it his specialty too, ie post log-keeping 🤣… sorry. should not laugh. it is EXTREMELY important to keep dated and timed records. But re posts, i would priorities enemies rather than friends… and yet i can’t be bothered to📗 the hysterical White Flag Waver of DOOM😂😂😂
Signpost lying through his nasty little fascist shill teeth again! But, hey, remind me what happened when Jeremy and Co condemned the Panorama program. Did any of the MSM pick up on their valid criticisms re doctored emails etc? No, of COURSE they didn’t! And needless to say, the MSM ‘reported’ the LP leaked document in such a way that it reflected negatively and damagingly on Jeremy.
Anyway, will you apologise and admit that you invented the stuff about Robin Lees taking legal action against Dominic Cummings so that you could then go on to fraudulently discredit and denigrate Jeremy by comparison? Oh, right, and you were one of the first to pile in on Tuesday and smear Jeremy and deceive readers of skwawkbox into believing that Jeremy had now said the opposite of what he’d said three weeks before. He didn’t of course, and it was a Big Lie, designed to lead readers of skwawbox to believe Jeremy has no principles – ie you and your fascist scum buddies ALL piled in to do a character assassination job on Jeremy based on a Big Lie and Deception.