Analysis comment

The explosive truth about the deal Starmer’s office DID make for Corbyn’s reinstatement – and that the ‘MSM’ are not telling you straight

The media have started to hint, in vague terms, that Jeremy Corbyn’s advisers have evidence of ‘exchanges’ between Keir Starmer’s office and Corbyn – and that Corbyn’s team ‘say’ show a deal to reinstate him to the party – but, all too typically, the same media that spent years smearing Corbyn are diluting the reality. So here’s the short and straightforward version:

  • evidence exists that proves the previous Labour leader’s team was in dialogue with the current Labour leadership office about his re-entry to the party
  • Starmer went back on the deal when the anti-Corbyn Establishment kicked off
  • LOTO (Starmer’s office) refuses to deny this on the record, for good reasons
  • Corbyn has the ‘receipts’ to prove the ‘transaction’ and he intends to produce them in a UK court of law

Such a deal, if proven, will be a clear case of the ‘political interference’ in the party’s disciplinary process that the EHRC’s report has forbidden – as is the subsequent decision to withdraw the whip because of the right-wing political backlash.

Labour insiders say that Starmer’s ‘reserve strategy’ is to blame two of his LOTO staff – whom he has already ‘bollocked’ to prepare the ground. If the issue becomes too hot, they will be made the scapegoats.

This, behind the fudging and cotton wool the media are using to blur it, is the current state of affairs.

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. Whether Corbyn has the Labour whip or not is a separate political decision it is not a disciplinary issue. Starmer has probably based his decision on whether he thinks Jeremy’s membership of the PLP whilst he maintains his current stance is an electoral asset or a liability.

    1. SteveH don’t be so dishonest. Starmer has not restored the whip because the BOD on behalf of Netanyahu ordered him not to.

      1. Jack – You are the one claiming to know so I naturally presumed you had some evidence to support your assertions.

      2. There is plenty of evidence SteveH if you care to look at what’s already public knowledge but it’s not in your imaginary email.

      1. Joseph – Well that may be your rather weird interpretation but I was simply referring to whether Labour would be more likely to win with or without Corbyn. Perhaps you could explain why you have chosen to take such an obtuse stance.

      2. It’s not just the MP who suffers when the whip is withdrawn – her/his constituents are also deprived of whatever Party resources, solidarity and support a Labour MP can call upon on their behalf.
        Those constituents voted for a Labour candidate – to deprive all those thousands of their democratic choice is inherently undemocratic. AND DISHONEST.
        Starmer doing that in a fit of authoritarian pique is pathetic and infantile.

  2. I hope that the LOTO staffers take the Party to Court for making them the scapegoats of this sorry tale. I agree Rob, Starmer doesn’t look that he is going to be leader by next Conference.
    Never Blair faced this amount of rebellion from within the Party, as most people that disagree with him left in silence and mostly carry on voting Labour south of the border.
    I hope that Corbyn has a date in mind and if the Labour Whip isn’t reinstated that he consider doing a Livingstone and stand for the London Mayoralty. That would be the best vindication. Oh Jeremy Corbyn!!!.

  3. Setting to scene to scapegoat others, not taking responsibility for his decisions/actions, caving in to the usual suspects, the guy is a liability. No wonder he and kis posse do not want members to discuss anything related to them. What rear-ends.

  4. MSM guards shielding the 1%, don’t do straight. They can’t do straight. They’re made that way. If straight, they can’t move. They only move themselves by twisting … zig zag … slithering.

    They won’t make straight, in the desert, a highway …or ANY way, ANY where for our many policies to benefit the many.

    MSM venomous guards make the crooked, MORE crooked, and the rough places plain, ONLY for their 1% few.

    But, always remember, their methods include making plain places rough, and rough places rougher for “the many”, the 99% 🌹🌹🌹

  5. Starmer’s real problem here is that he not very bright. What he is doing is playing into the left’s hands. If he had the brains of a hedgehog he would have asked himself, months ago, whether following the strategy of the Trilateral Commission and the Embassy of Israel was not a basic error, given that neither appears to understand anything about the Labour Party or its members.
    Why should they? They just want the party to break up.
    The way they are going about it, though, the party could emerge from this test stronger than ever and with the total public discrediting of the right wing Fifth Column.

    1. Bevin, Starmer is bright, the way that the left behaved during the Blair’s years, either leaving the Party in dignified silence or staying and never briefing the MSM against Blair or rebelling, has persuade Starmer that this time around we will do the same, leave the field in silence for him to do as he pleases and repeat the same mantra that Labour is always better than Tory and carry on supporting Labour.
      This time he got it wrong, although bright he isn’t as bright or as charismatic as Blair was. Attacking Corbyn frontally has been too much, even for the center left to bear and now Starmer has a civil war on his hands. Sadly, I don’t believe we are going to emerge stronger from this, I am not as optimistic as you are, but Starmer and his cronies have the more to lose.
      Many former Labour voters no longer believe that Labour is always better than Tory but actually as bad or worse than the Tories. Plus many Labour members staying in the Party we are going to chose where and whom to help with our efforts.
      Long gone are the days in which members like myself did deliveries and canvassed for Labour candidates we didn’t rate that high but, supported them because they were Labour candidates and were always better than the Tories. No this time I am afraid. I and many like me would chose the place and candidates to help, so next May is going to deliver the shock of their lives to Starmer and chums.

      1. I am one of those “silent” that left the Labour party.And many of us beaver away both here and across the pond…we are not silent just more flexible to deliver the poison to the enemy within..We don’t support lost causes with subs or donations and certainly never prop up a dictatorship.We have served office and knocked on doors and spoke on the airwaves to help defeat the enemy of Socialism which like me and many others is international.We are not “Silent” we just don’t believe in the Labour party as a vehicle for the working-class which are the only people anywhere in the world I personally care about.

      2. This Labour supporter & family will not vote Labour at the next GE if the neoliberals are still running the show. I will never vote Tory so I’m politically homeless now, such a sad state of affairs.
        Starmer has got it badly wrong loads on Twitter saying they’ll not hold their nose and vote labour, we have been shown a different kind of politics why should we settle for anything less.

      3. Steve H …American NGOs and so called Christian Evangelicals have been infiltrating and training anti Government puppets to push the American agenda,rather than our comrades in China who have helped and neutered a revival of a country that was decimated by a insane leader Pol pot and the infamous Khmer rouge regime..You Steve H would be better keeping your ignorance to yourself “judas H” /

  6. Really the party needs to die , it needs to hurry this process up and implode , the no doubt forthcoming tsunami of CLPs protests and votes of no confidence I hope will trigger this along with the top level Corbyn legal challenge , the flood gates will open once the charge against Starmer is proved .
    Those CLPs side lined / suspended MUST continue to run in defiance of Evans and Starmer for the sake of democracy and free-speech principles within the party , running parallel meetings as rallying points for the members who will also be no doubt subsequently suspended / expelled.
    It has to be a collating point for the membership , a holding initiative whilst the Unions slowly come to the realisation that they now have no alternative but to support those CLPs and help finance the running of the parallel organisation .To the extent that of even running parallel candidates at the forthcoming local elections against the imposed Labour ones run by Regional Offices , there won’t be any CLPs on the ground bc they’ve been suspended !
    We can no longer wait for the chinless wonders of the left wing MPs , this has now to come from the ground up .They may be bold enough to step forward when they see the support within the membership but who knows.

    1. lundiel – The membership don’t appear to see the same potential you do, he only got 21% of the vote and was beaten into 3rd place behind Rosena Allin-Khan

    2. Sorry lundiel, Burgon folded like a blanket when he was challenged over his remarks on Zionism.

      1. Yes, Jack, I’m not so sure about Burgon now, either, even though I voted for him for deputy.

        That Howard Beckett, on the other hand…

  7. A friend recently lost their case against the LP on a technicality, because although what the party did was wrong, it wasn’t actually in the rule book.
    So, are the EHRC recommendations actually LP rules?

    1. Wanda – The EHRC are a statutory body and they have served an Enforcement Notice on the Labour Party. The party is not in a position to ignore the law.

      1. The Supreme Court can set aside the findings of statutory bodies if it finds grounds to do so – for example, that the findings contravene the principles of natural justice – and the EHRC decision and the IHRA working definition and examples most definitely do deny justice – and a voice – to a great many people.
        Labour is in fact in a position to ignore what you call “the law” and it is certainly in a position to challenge it in the Courts. The difference is whether Labour or the EHRC take the case to Court I think you’ll find.
        A finding of the EHRC is a very provisional “law.”

      2. David – Thanks for pointing out the blindingly obvious but Labour has already accepted the EHRC report without reservation so the likelihood of them now deciding to challenge its results in the courts are about as close to zero as it is possible to get.

  8. There’s so much going on in the party I may have got this wrong.
    When RLB was sacked wasn’t it claimed she’d spoken to Starmer or his office and they had agreed on a statement that was to be released. It was only later on Starmer changed his mind and sacked her.
    If this is true is Starmer consulting with others then he’s ‘persuaded’ to take the opposite action which he duly agrees to do.
    Whatever’s going on in the party it stinks.

    1. I was under the impression that RLB got the sack for prevaricating about taking down the ‘offending’ post. She either intended to engineer her own dismissal from the frontbench or she was naïve and overplayed her hand.

  9. BoB, re the stink – one only needs to know where the turd is to know where to pour the bleach.

  10. I’m totally confused what is the point of the EHRC if Starmer can flout it at his will with no consequences that I can see anyway. I’m referring to breaking the EHRC rules by not reinstating the whip to Corbyn (political interference) is there no recourse?
    Why haven’t the EHRC done something about it?
    Just trying to make sense of it all, thanks!

    1. Hillary, thank you for that info🌹
      The lesson is, AVOID backroom deals. Be straight. Say what you mean. Mean what you say as Tony Benn often advised🌹

      Let’s add; if you make deals with those who boast about threats to “knife you in the front”, then expect to be “knifed in the front” again and in the back and sides too.

      “Those who fail to learn from history, are condemned to live it”.

      We should never wait until the flood waters have reached the top of the windows to attempt a flood defence. A defence after the flood, is no defence 🌹

  11. The Labour Party has announced the appointment of Jane Ramsey, described as “an expert on standards in public and political life”, to lead on the establishment of a new independent complaints process for internal disciplinary matters.

    The party was served with an unlawful act notice and given six weeks – until December 10th – to produce a draft action plan in response to the findings and recommendations of the report released by the equality body.
    The EHRC must agree with the plan and will monitor its administration. Labour is legally mandated to commission an independent process to handle and determine antisemitism complaints as soon as rule changes allow.

  12. One for the diary of those who may be interested

    Restore the Whip to Jeremy Corbyn
    from Momentum

  13. “Corbyn has the ‘receipts’ to prove the ‘transaction’ and he intends to produce them in a UK court of law” you say?

    Oh yes please, bring it on! It’s what the war-chest has been waiting for!

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: