Breaking comment News

LabourList ‘flagship rally’ conference event attacked for panel excluding black people

‘This is not ok’, says elected Conference Arrangements Committee member

An conference fringe event by LabourList has been attacked for its all-white panel – or at least advertising. LabourList tweeted an ad for the so-called ‘flagship’ event to discuss ‘rebuilding post-Covid’, but while the image for the event in Brighton suggests there are more speakers than those shown, there is not one black face among those shown – the nearest is Lisa Nandy, whose father is Indian.

Seema Chandwani, an elected member-representative on the Conference Arrangements Committee that oversees the main event but not the fringes, condemned the event’s make-up, saying that ‘in the Labour and Trade Union movement’ there is nothing “flagship” about having a panel with not one Black person on it especially as Black people are disproportionately impacted by COVID’:

Sadly, this is not a new phenomenon in the Keir Starmer era. When Starmer put together a ‘diversity panel’ shortly after assuming the leadership last year, every staffer on the panel was white and the party’s only Asian director was excluded.

Similarly, earlier this year right-wingers on the NEC forced through a vote to exclude Asian women and put forward an all-white, all-male panel to select candidates for a borough in which one in four residents is from an ethnic minority.

Starmer’s Labour has been widely criticised for its racism toward Muslims, black people and Gypsy-Roma Travellers.

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 without hardship, 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. Then you look at the Tory cabinet … Johnson’s cabinet FFS – and see quite a few non-whites!

    Labour, apparently, according to its leader, a non-racist party! It has some catching up to do! But I don’t think any of the leadership groups heart and soul is into that aspect of … ahem … diversity.

    1. JoeRobson, we must ask OURSELVES why? I’m DEFINITELY not into identity nor virtuous noises. I believe in CLEAR DYNAMIC ACTIONS. Making things happen rather than waiting.
      Interesting, despite never initiating diversity / virtuous noises, Tories in their own party DELIVERED: FIRST allegedly female PM,
      PLUS a second dreadful Theresa May, + though unsavoury ideological horror merchants, SEVERAL non whites in KEY positions over the years eg ¿Warsi?, + especially today. They COMPLETELY outshine Labour under ANY leadership. FACTS!!! There must be a LOGICAL reason.

      1. Singpost, I cannot answer for the Tories but back in 2016 what I witnessed was a Labour Party bereft of talent. I reached the conclusion that if anyone wanted a career in politics and was somehow intellectually mediocre the best course of action was to join the Labour Party.
        Can you imagine any Tory MP filing a complaint for breach of Parliamentary Privilage like Seema Malhotra did?
        What about the constants pearls of wisdom coming out from Owen Smith’s mouth? That the PLP decided that Owen Smith could take on Corbyn and win the leadership is all we need to know.
        The left MPs selected to stand for Parliament (with minor exceptions) all appear somehow to be missing a back bone. Otherwise, how if could be explained the treatment of Chris Williamson by his fellow SCG’s comrades?
        Williamson didn’t last long as Labour MP didn’t he? Despite his obvious talent Williamson was forced out of the PLP when Corbyn and the rest of the PLP decided to through Williamson under the bus in their pathetic attempt to placate the right of the LP.

      2. Maria Vazquez, i agree with your every word above🔆🔆🔆
        Yes, Chris’ treatment was and REMAINS dreadful. He was targeted as Ken Livingstone & later Loach & George Galloway, BECAUSE they are EXCELLENT Socialist assets. Jeremy’s BEST media defenders.
        It was obvious that they needed protection. What did they get instead??? No gratitude. Not even an apology. Think of it – May CORRECTLY dismissed Pritti Patel. Johnson rehired her AND keeps her in post. What do our lot do with truth on our side??? Push the best, longest, most loyal friends under every bus. Worse yet, we have been cleverly infiltrated by a few who patrol night and day trying to bully us out of stating FACTS. Result??? We keep failing and most shameful, make noises of virtue without being virtuous in action.

        Did a quick search re: Berger, to name the seat voters gave her the bins of garbage! Finchley & Golders Green. From a 79% ish win powered by enthusiasm 4 Jeremy, Berger slumped to a defeat with 31.?%. Defeated by BREXIT Tories in a seat she admitted choosing (using) because 1️⃣ As all bigots do, they feel others who look like them, r as disgusting as they r themselves. The good people of Finchley & Golders Green delivered, get lost! In fact, years b4, even the misnamed Chronicle accused Berger of using JLM for “career advancement.”

        2️⃣ The seat she hoped to use for yet more “career advancement” voted 70% REMAIN. Yet again, underlining the distaste 4 Berger. They chose Johnson Party “Get Brexit Done”.
        3️⃣ Though in July 2019 a Berger mouthpiece said “no intention” of joining the Liberal Democrats; two months later liar jumped to Jo Swinson’s ever deceiving Liberal Democrats. After using; Co Op party; then others who LOVE their reflections eg Ummuna, to scrape up TIGs, then CUCKs…

        Despite Liberal Democrats, Ummuna & Berger getting WALL to WALL positive coverage by ALL MSM i heard, they were at last a kicked out of seats they were squatting on. USERS!!! Thats what they are CAREERISTS USERS of little talent.

        Berger’s Liverpool constituents tried to place TWO NO CONFIDENCE motions. Who were their obstacles??? And what EXACTLY was gained???

        Therefore on this u r absolutely correct. All politics, including unions, 4 a long long time have settled into a cosy status quo enabling & preserving set of FALSE people. They dont wake up wanting to do evil like Duncan Smith, Twatson, Widdecombe, Mandelson nor Blair WMD War Criminal do. Not laziness either. It’s learned culture of keep heads down, see politics as a dirty “GAME” which i’ve heard Tornberry & Gardner in particular repeat.
        Also they see expressing thoughts as “confrontation”, not unified” etc… utter Utter UTTER concentrated claptrap. Even Dianne Abbott was pumping that out when Sharon Graham won.

        We have ALL policy solidity + public majority made it CKEAR, they want what we said. NOT Broad Church tripe‼️‼️‼️
        Yet due to poverty of analysis, well meaning people cannot see; the public lost reason to believe those who BLOCKED eg: motions of no confidence in Berger, Ummuna, pausing Dep Leadership the FLUSHING a LONG voting record of EU scepticism to appease vilest bastards; could be trusted to not continue sacrificing thousands of members and any policies which our OPEN opposites disliked.

        The customer is ALWAYS right. So are the voters. We can only use leverage we have. The General Electorate have no reason to indulge in complicated games and backroom deals amongst the high command.
        I’m no Burnham fan, but he is correct in his VERY LONG Telegraph article which may appear tomorrow. As i said AGES ago … last year or year b4, he is FIRMLY interested in leading Labour. He now admits he was WRONG to go along with Harriet Harman’s Get Tough on Benefit Claimants. He says Keith is doing a good job, despite lambasting him just a few weeks ago.

        With different words he agrees with me: the public detests the convoluted ambiguous deceits (including starmer’s SIR REMAIN’s “Constructive Ambiguity”. Burnham calls it “nuanced” arguments or something.

        I still disapprove of him 4 blanking Jeremy after winning Manchester on the wave of enthusiasm. I’ve been thinking those who knew Jeremy b4 we did, may have spotted obvious deficits. My point is, they had a DUTY to help him bring out his best self and fill the gaps. Instead parasites like Mandelson doubted his appeal then tried undermining him…. Interestingly BOD, misnamed Chronicle & CAA admitted spotting Jeremy’s appeal INSTANTLY, that he would win the leadership and Gen Elections if he was not stopped, so they compiled their DOSSIER to the parasites. Interesting that within minutes of him getting the nominations to stand, THEY SAW, the obvious which MILLIONS saw incl me, that Jeremy offered what the public wanted and could win. But your point is proved Maria by the fact Jeremy himself and his team did not see the obvious. That is neither due to natural blindness nor natural stupidity, but narrow vision, closed from a deep bunker… from where the world is made of the undersides of feet & pelvic undercarriages moving about.

        Some Jeremy thought were friends, think him uneducated, so he should defer to them and step aside. BUT why lie??? Even after the People’s Vote stuff worked??? Even i thought that at the last two weeks of GE2019 campaign, Jeremy would give a barnstorming defence of his historical views and finish the Tories and THEIR charlatan Parasite Johnson for good.

        We are all wrong sometimes… anyway as ever, only meant to say, i agree with u on that Maria Vazquez.

    1. Steve H Hall”I am not into identity politics “Good god Stevie youve sold the family out as well…..? Thats mighty White of you ginge ” sitting in the Caribbean bolt hole and pretending to the relatives hes not just a wee bit a racist like the knights shadowy misfits.but he makes it up with his commitment to freedom and prosperity.for himself.

      1. Joseph – Who is this ‘Hall’ person you keep obsessing about.

        Don’t be ridiculous, you are talking nonsense. Why do you think that I should treat people differently just because of the colour of their skin.

    2. Quite. Its very ‘diverse’ having a Shadow team made up of a majority of extreme centrists.

    1. baz2001, i agree with u!!! Sadly a long time obvious. Possibly due to spirit / energy / time being limited. DRAINED by lots TALKING but ZERO implementation … ZERO action. Worse yet, the talking is mainly “inwards” … “back patting.” After self-soothing LIVELY speeches to agreeable rallies, attendees go their separate ways feeling virtuous, do ZILCH, then return to the next self righteous adult creche meeting. Oh! In between meetings they read + swap reading agreed stuff. Hence the abysmal poverty re presenting our views + rebutting even weakest bilge from parasites in & out of Labour.

      1. Signpost, funded by the Zionist Apartheid State, what else to expect from the Labour Party ? It’s a Cesspit of racism, corruption and lies.

  2. LabourList is just a front bench mouthpiece when it’s not an article written by Akehurst or some dyed in the wool Blairite.

    1. Rita – I guess you are entitled to uour opinion, everyone has one about something BUT
      Labourlist is sponsored by both Unite and the FBU both of who are not particularly well known for being RW. It publishes articles from right across the Labour political spectrum. Members of the SCG are regular contributors, Len also contributes articles on a regular basis plus Jeremy Corbyn has published about 200 articles on the site.

      1. SteveH- They removed the public comment section and the forum -presumably because the opinion these Blairites were pushing in their columns, quite rightfully drew critical responses from even their moderately leftist readership – not just Corbynistas.

        LABOURLIST has become the Labour right’s propaganda site these days, with strictly no right of reply. Unlike the Tory equivalent ConservativeHome. Perversely, they have a clickable sub-heading ‘Comment’ but that’s just for editorial style opinion pieces. Editor Sienna Rodgers seems broadly sympathetic to the left, afaik, but there’s very little pushback against the right on Labourlist.

      2. Andy – They removed the comments section because it became an unmanageable cesspit of inane profanities between Corbyn supporters and the ABC crowd. It came as no surprise that they abandoned it when it no longer served any useful purpose
        Personally I think they publish a good cross section of opinion from a wide range of contributors. They are quick to publish detailed news about Labour and the factual info published by their staff is accurate.

      3. SteveH – LabourList comment sections had trolling by those who were obsessed with the idea that Corbyn was some raving anti-Semite and the Labour party had some endemic AS problem(this despite the fact only 0.06% of members were accused & investigated). They were fanatical in their beliefs and banging on about it all the time. They’d introduce it into unrelated discussions.

        They were probably CCHQ trolls tbh, and the mod(s) should have remove their comments. The fact ConservativeHome can manage a lively comment and debate section, as can the Scottish Nationalists , but Labour can’t, suggests some in the party can’t handle criticism, wrongly classing it as abuse.

      4. Andy – I recall that both the Borbyn devotees and the ABC grouping were equally guilty of slagging each other off. But who cares, there are plenty of other forums for people to rant on. Lets not forget that Skwawkbox also frequently disallows comments on articles related to anti-Semitism.
        I would far rather LabourList used their limited resources to do what they are doing now, keeping us informed, rather than wasting it on refereeing over-excited keyboard warriors shouting rhetoric at each other.

  3. The latest polls aren’t going well for Boris
    “The survey of 10,000 Britons by Electoral Calculus and Find Out Now showed some 54 Tory MPs were at risk of losing their seats, including a string of “red wall” constituencies that only flipped from Labour to the Conservatives in 2019.
    Support for the Tories slumped by 8%, from 45% at the 2019 election, to just 37% today.
    While that still places them ahead of Labour, on 33%, losing 54 seats would still leave Boris Johnson on 311 – well short of the 326 needed for an overall Commons majority.
    Even though the Tories would be the largest party, he would be unable to form a government without a coalition”

    1. SteveH – 8%? There’s typically (+ or -) 3% margin of error. So it could be just 5%!

      And what about when the Tory press, BBC, ITV , Sky News and Channel 4 go into propaganda mode to get the Tory vote out?

      Labour, to feel even slightly confident, would need to be running well ahead after 11 years of Tory misrule. Sir Policy vacuum’s ratings, pathetically, are now worse than his invisible party’s, and those of his anonymous Shadow cabinet – who nobody can name, not even seasoned political journalists.

      1. Andy – Don’t be such a pessimist. Rejoice, the movement is in the right direction.

        ps: Corbyn’s ratings were always worse than the party’s

  4. The old excuse of Labour rw-centrists that is that the selections should be made on how good the candidate is not their skin colour or sex will be along “real soon now”

    1. iamcrawford – I wouldn’t classify myself as a RW-centrist but I am quite happy to oblige
      Selections should be made on how good the candidate is not their skin colour or sex.
      Don’t you agree?

      1. I don’t know about iamcrawford, but I do agree with you.

        The problem is that too often, us white people decide on subjective grounds that the white candidate is better, and end up appointing mediocre white people, because they are “like us”, and we think they will “fit in”, ahead of more talented non-white candidates.

        I’ve seen it happen time and time again. It’s clearly visible in the sheer number of utterly ineffectual, downright stupid and talentless white people in power across business, politics and the media.

      2. Ever heard of unconscious bias – It’s a big problem.
        Unless you are an malicious and dishonest rw-centrist moderate ( clue in the name) in which case the bias is overt and deliberate.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: