“Enough!” Trickett goes to war with top-down leadership and ‘robocop canvassing’ Labour in video and tweet

Working-class left MP speaks out for democracy and against ‘diktat’

Senior left Labour MP Jon Trickett has spoken out on social media in what Labour-watchers will interpret as a declaration of war with the ‘drone politics’ and Stalinism of the party’s current leadership.

Trickett has tweeted a video of himself in a 2017 interview attacking the ‘top-down command-and-control’ approach to politics that he says will not win elections for the party:

And in the tweet accompanying the video, he has called “Enough!” and attacked the ‘command and control culture’, ‘top down organisation’, ‘robocop canvassing calls’ and ‘diktat’ that characterise Starmer’s leadership, stating:

  1. Labour must shed its command & control culture.
  2. No more top down organisation in an era of bottom up politics.
  3. Replace robocop canvassing calls with community organisation.
  4. Democracy not diktat. A movement not a monolith.

The ‘robocop’ reference is a clear dig at Labour’s embarrassing ‘reward’ scheme in which members can ‘win’ a phone or video call with Starmer or Angela Rayner if they manage to grind through thousands of scripted canvassing calls to hapless voters:

Trickett’s move will come as a breath of fresh air to a movement already sick to the back teeth of Labour’s dive back into the cesspit of defunct Establishment politics since Starmer took the leadership of the party less than a year ago.

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. Jon Trickett was also excellent with his question to Johnson. Thought Keith on the other hand, was at his most lamentable. Whenever i hear him, it suggest that the deep state recruited him as they assessed him as a dimwit. Today, it sounded as if English was not his first language. The brilliant new speaker, hurried Keith on last week. GREAT relief as he was droning on like water torture. This week, perhaps the speaker lavished him with leeway as he was traced AGAIN as being a virus.

    P.S. At the joint committee yesterday or day before, – Science and Health – ZARA SULTAN was SUPER+++ Clear, on point, and pursued the question of the previous speaker. I.E. the WRONG and DANGEROUS decision to administer Pfizer contrary to the TESTED, evidenced and APPROVED protocol.
    The deviation from the approved spacing is so that Johnson can claim that X number has been vaccinated in the same way he counted tests in the post as tests.
    Until the booster shot, the noisy claims of number vaccinated is inaccurate. Until the booster shot, your not!!! Don’t be scammed by Johnson🔴🔴🔴

  2. Dialogue rewards? It’s like getting badges and pats on the head at nursery school.

    1. Quite Christine. The “prizes” are actually an insult but the hierarchy are too dim to see that they are so condescending.

      Anyway, we all have direct connection to the Labour Party via Assaf Kaplan now, so he can just communicate with us direct surely?

      Hiya Assaf, how’s the spying on Labour Party members going? Got any juicy bits to tell us?

  3. A bid by Jeremy Corbyn to force the disclosure of Labour Party documents – that the ex-leader’s legal team believed could prove there was a deal around his readmission to the party – was unsuccessful.
    The judge concluded that disclosure was not desirable. She stated that Corbyn has “sufficient material to make a decision on the merits of his case” and “can make his case without resort to pre-action disclosure”.
    Although the preliminary action was lost by Corbyn’s team, but the legal action is not over. It is understood that Corbyn plans to pursue the substantive case, arguing that the suspension of the whip in November was unlawful

    1. Those that haven’t read the article that I linked to above may have missed this.
      LabourList understands that the party will be seeking to recover its costs from Jeremy Corbyn for the legal expenses that it incurred as a result of the disclosure application.

      1. Reply to Steve H at 11.23pm – would anyone expect anything other than an application for costs – the party leadership is becoming well known for spiteful and vindictive behaviour. Jeremy needed worry about costs however. We’ll be only too happy to crowdfund his expenses.

      2. Yeah, that’s – this – Labour Party attempting to blow smoke up everyone’s backsides, once more.

        As with Blair, we’re back to parsing each phrase and word.

        I don’t recall having to do that with the previous administration. What we heard – we got. Democratic Socialism.

    2. Jeremy must be encouraged by this – clearly it is the courts opinion that he has enough to make his case without the documents he asked for.

      1. I just read most of it. It IS long. Women, eh? 😉
        Sorry this comment is so long.

        Labour’s whole case is based on a bizarre lie – ie that there was never an agreement to reinstate Jeremy subject to him making an acceptable statement on the comment for which he’d been suspended. Except…

        There WAS a meeting with Jeremy’s representatives.
        Jeremy DID, following that meeting, make such a statement.
        On making that statement he WAS immediately reinstated.
        Clearly that WAS supposed to resolve the matter.

        Labour now claims, and apparently expects us and the court to believe, that those events were unrelated.
        “Master” Sullivan (Lisa Anne) has apparently swallowed whole the entirely specious submissions of Rachel Crasnow QC for “Labour” (ie for Starmer/Evans).

        Sullivan: “I note that Ms Crasnow made it clear that the Labour Party’s case is that there was no oral agreement as alleged.”
        [Despite my previous comment that MIGHT just be a signal she doesn’t buy it]

        Crasnow: “The alleged breach of the Labour Party rules is known and Mr Corbyn can ask his representatives, who he says made the oral agreement on his behalf, what the terms of it were. If he does not know what they were, he cannot have been a party to the agreement and cannot rely on it. If the reasons put forward for seeing the Labour Party’s notes are good reasons for pre-action disclosure in this case, they would be in nearly every oral contract case.
        [Every oral contract and every other kind of fucking case would benefit from pre-action disclosure of documentation – assuming the purpose of the courts is to arrive at the truth wasting as little time, effort and money as possible, that is]

        Crasnow: “It is unlikely to resolve the proceedings in their entirely. Whether there is evidence of bad faith or not, Mr Corbyn has identified allegations of procedural unfairness which he is able to go on and plead. The suggestion made that it would force the Labour Party to capitulate is not a proper matter to take in account. Pre-action disclosure is not designed to force disclosure to weaken the other side’s case.”
        [if disclosure weakens the other side’s case, it can only mean its case is dishonest]

        Crasnow’s arguments are complete bullshit – the fact they’ve been accepted thus far indicates this is a stitch-up the purpose of which is to intimidate Corbyn out of proceeding.
        As is the threat of suing for costs.

        I say we crowdfund Jeremy again – “Labour” know the relevant documents will have to be provided when Jeremy’s team demands them once proceedings begin.
        It’s perfectly clear to all concerned that disclosure of documents will prove Starmer a liar – a vacillating weakling surrounded by yes-men. As if there weren’t enough proof already.
        If the documents were not damning they wouldn’t try so hard to hide them.
        I wouldn’t be surprised if they fold on the court steps.

  4. Craig Murray…..

    ‘My Sworn Evidence on the Sturgeon Affair’

    ….. so I am simply going to give you [readers of his blog] the text of my evidence for now without any comment, but redacted to prevent jigsaw identification of court protected identities.

    Mr Salmond further told me that there was a massive police operation underway to try to get accusers to come forward against him. This was going to ludicrous lengths. He showed me an email from one woman to him, in which she stated that she had been called in and interviewed by the police because many years ago Alex Salmond had been said by another person to have been seen kissing her on the cheeks in a theatre foyer. The woman stated she had told them it was a perfectly normal greeting…..

    There’s a lot to read, but it’s well worth taking the time to do so (when you have time):

  5. Too little and too late from Trickett. The so-called left have sold us out

    1. They haven’t sold anybody out David, and yur spouting complete bollox!

      Yet ANOTHER Blairite pretending he’s a left-winger! As I said recently, never a day goes by without the goddam shills on here trying to discredit socialist MPs or left-wing members, and they’ve done so literally hundreds of times just in the last year alone!

      The implication of what DL is saying is that if Jon Trickett had spoken out four or five or six months ago it would have made a difference, and Starmer and Co would have stopped their attacks on the left. Of course it wouldn’t have made a difference, and DL is talking B/S!

      Proagandists often use cliches to get their message across, in THIS case that old chestnut ‘too little too late’! But perhaps DL would like to tell us WHAT he thinks Jon Trickett should have said AND when. No? Thought not!

      1. Afterthought: TWO cliches in fact – ie ‘too little too late’ AND ‘sold us out’. Yeah, a short comment consisting of two cliches! And THAT was IT!!

  6. Can you tell me what’s wrong with expecting action, and not just words, Allan?

    The iron isn’t just hot, it’s damn near molten. Expect it to melt if/when Corbyn wins his case.

    And if/when that happens, will you join the multitude of others already expecting significant action, including a leadership challenge?

    And should none be forthcoming it will only demonstrate irrefutably that the leftist MPs are content enough just to take their seats and ‘know their place’.

    1. I think the main reason why we have not had a leadership challenge or any real action against Starmer to date is the Covid crisis.
      The restrictions placed on our ability to meet and discuss issues , the pressure people are under caring for themselves and vulnerable relatives, the financial struggle many face because of workplace closures ,etc mean that this is not the right time launch a leadership challenge. However the Covid situation will not last forever and I believe if we are to survive as a movement and a party we must rid ourselves of our undemocratic , vindictive ,untrustworthy leadership as soon as we can. If Rayner and Starmer lead us into the next election it won’t matter which party wins. We will still have a Tory government because they are Labour in name only.

    2. Well it must be nice for the bottom feeders profession Lawyers,that they are guaranteed “Loadsa money” with the Labour members funding both sides..

    3. Says Toffee, who has no problem whatsoever with signpost lying through his teeth about Robin Lees – the guy who spotted dominic Cummings in Barnard Castle – taking legal action against Cummings, so that he could then smear Jeremy Corbyn by comparison. And Toffee would have readers believe he’s a left-winger and a JC supporter!

      Oh, right, and he spouts on about a leadership challenge by the left knowing damn well that left-wing MPs are vastly out-numbered by right-wing Blairites and that any such challenge would be absolutely pointless and futile.

      Who do you think you’re kidding and deceiving Toffee!!

  7. BIG DEAL!!! SO he has found his voice. It’s amazing how suddenly a few so-called Socialists have found they can magically talk big on the cult of new Labour 2.0’s BS. BUT where was there screaming about Jerremy?

    SILENCE or a few modest protests no threats of resignations. no demands nope just acceptance like good little MP’s…

    So I find it galling having to listen to them trumpet how much they care way to late. Socialism is dead in new Labour 2.0 this consent attacks removal of memberships again silence and acceptance.

    So if you’re staying at the party for socialism to return your be wasting your time. We need a proper socialist Labour party, not this zombie with a red rosette we have now.

    Wake me up when and if they actually do something not just have a little protest and then go silent again!

    1. Here we go again! The daily dose of smearing left-wing/socialist MPs by the fascist shills!

      DG is of course a shill, but if he WASN’T, I would urge him to go forth and form this new socialist party that he repeatedly goes on about EVERY single time he posts a comment. In other words, why don’t you go and form your own party DG seeing as how you regard yourself as so clever and superior INSTEAD of just spouting your B/S over and over and over again!

      1. Wow! You’re a diehard, aren’t you Allan? All hail Allan – The number one Corbynista.

        We get it. But we don’t have to act like you do to be it. There’s no kudos, medals nor any prizes for being an ultra-fanatical Corbynista. You are in no way superior to anyone with your ranting and raving at anyone you suspect doesn’t conform to your standards to the fucking letter.

        There is NO oneupmanship in ANY socialist agenda…Except, it seems, yours. You just make yourself look like some sort of deranged fool by acting as though you’re ‘more socialist’ than anyone else here.

        Oh, and nobody – but NOBODY is above scrutiny and criticism. That includes Corbyn.

        Deal with it.

  8. I’d guess a leadership challenge would be difficult if not impossible to mount at this point but whether and how Conference should be held this year might be a fight we should begin right away. Maybe Corbyn’s case might open the door to a challenge, but I don’t know.
    I’m thinking that if we leave it to the last minute the right might find a way to stitch up Conference.
    Even if it can be held in Brighton in September I’d guess the fewer delegates the better for the Starmorrhoids – fewer to have to intimidate and bully to get their own way?
    If there’s any remnant whatever of Covid, even if it’s only a minor issue by then – even if it’s not endemic in the UK it could still give them an excuse to argue for a maximum of one delegate per CLP not the usual 13,000 or so attendees.
    With CLP meetings not happening might they even argue that MPs nominating delegates would be the only ‘fair’ way to select them?
    I imagine delegates look forward to Conference – I’d still argue for online voting at normal conferences but holding it online seems the only way to ensure there actually is one this year.
    This is all just guesswork on my part – what do you lot reckon? How far will Starmer and Evans go to put Conference in a straitjacket?
    I think it might be worth demanding now that it be guaranteed for this year by holding it online – and any extra pressure we can put on them now is a good thing, isn’t it?

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: