Starmer, Rayner not at NEC meeting that will decide Corbyn motion, union candidate funding, retrospective punishment

Leader and deputy leader opt out of tricky meeting

Keir Starmer and Angela Rayner are both missing from a key meeting of Labour’s national executive (NEC) today, where NEC members will vote on a number of key, prickly motions.

The NEC today will debate and vote on a motion to restore the whip to Jeremy Corbyn, another against the retrospective punishment of Labour members for actions that were permissible under the rules at the time they were done – and a contentious change to impose a spending cap on the funds unions can put in to promoting their preferred prospective candidates in parliamentary selections.

No official reason is known for their absence. Are they trying to distance themselves from the results of votes they might lose – or have agreements been reached with right-wing unions that will secure what Starmer wants? Anyone’s guess until the results are known.

The union vote is seen as being targeted specifically at Unite, an attempt to rule out potential left candidates that union – and its spending power – might back. If the unions agree to defeat it, they can – but some other unions may be happy enough to see Unite’s power reduced as long as their own influence is maintained, even though they would be foolish in the extreme to trust Starmer not to target them in turn whenever it suits his handlers.

SKWAWKBOX needs your help. The site is provided free of charge but depends on the support of its readers to be viable. If you’d like to help it keep revealing the news as it is and not what the Establishment wants you to hear – and 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 doing its job.

If you wish to republish this post for non-commercial use, you are welcome to do so – see here for more.


  1. They aren’t there because like de piffle, they cause all sorts of shit and then scarper, safe in the knowledge the msm will soon move on to the next debacle; when the same thing’ll happen again.

    Gutless twunts. They’d be screaming to anyone who’d listen if similar happened to them whereas Corbyn maintains a dignified silence (He shouldn’t, but he does)

    1. Toffee, could you elaborate as to what you think Jeremy should say – or HAVE said – if he WASN’T maintaining a ‘dignified silence’. Thanks

      PS It would appear from the result of the NEC vote that Starmer and Rayner knew there was no need for the two of them to attend the meeting and vote.

      1. If he had maintained a dignified silence on the day that the EHRC report was released he would still be a member of the PLP.

      2. I doubt it somehow! As we ALL know (on the left), Jeremy was suspended for telling the truth, and your wonderful leader twisted what he said into something completely different so as to justify suspending him (and then three weeks later just after he was reinstated, removing the whip from him). Yes, Starmer fabricated something and, as such, duped and deceived millions of people, so that he could pretend he had a valid reason for doing so. And even worse – and only a fascist piece of unowhat would or could do such a thing – he wants Jeremy to retract what he said – ie retract the truth – and apologise before the whip can be restored, and did so knowing that Jeremy is a man of integrity and principles and, as such, he will never do so.

        Yep, using Jeremy’s integrity against him…. what a smashing feller, eh!

  2. Something smells rotten, maybe the whip would be restored to Corbyn but they intend for him either:
    – To lose the whip again when he come in support of other members of the SCG that are going to be targeted to lose their trigger ballots
    -to keep quiet thus appearing to sanction the results of the trigger ballots so preventing the formation of a break away left Party.
    It is too convenient that the Party cannot access members financial data since November. Hence, I am not going to be surprised if a number of known left Party members are going to be prevented for attending their branches trigger ballots on the excuse that they cannot prove that they aren’t in arrears.
    My academic guess is that MPs like Apsana Begun, Martha Osamor and Bell Ribero-Adi are going to be triggered, they are relatively new MPs so not that well know by their residents. They all occupied Labour safe seats in London and the right of the Party is going to do its best to see them gone and them replace them with other black women more to Starmer’s liking.

    1. It should be noted that since the rule changes all sitting Labour MPs are more secure in their posts.

      The rule change that was proposed by Keir Starmer and passed at this years conference undid the Corbyn era reform that made triggering an MP easier, and raised the threshold for setting off a full selection process. Instead of requiring one third of either party or affiliate branches to vote for triggering the sitting Labour MP, the rules now require at least 50% of an electoral college comprising party and affiliate branches (each weighted 50%) to vote in favour of triggering the MP. Trade unions usually agree not to start fierce deselection battles. That makes the new threshold a high bar to meet.

      1. SteveH, are you this naive? or are you playing at equivocating the rest of us? Without access to reliable membership data, left members will be stopped for attending the trigger ballots at their branches. Hence, making it easier for the right wing to win a vote in favour of triggering these MPs.
        You appear to forget that affiliates branches have one vote each, how many branches from affiliates will be voting in each CLP? I can tell you that in my old CLP, affiliated branches outnumbered Labour Party branches comfortably.
        Basically, if GMB, the Co-OP, LAPIS, JLM decide to trigger an MP it is a strong case that the seating MP will lose the trigger ballot.

      2. Maria – If an MP is triggered then their fate would be decided by the CLP holding a OMOV all member ballot. It would then be up to ‘the left’ to get their vote out to protect those they support (if you’ve still got the numbers after so many left). If they have the local support they will keep their job.
        It’s democracy.

      3. “triggered then their fate would be decided by the CLP holding a OMOV all member ballot. It would then be up to ‘the left’ to get their vote out….”

        Which is precisely why many of us feel free to turn our backs on the party in its current guise. I have no left MP anywhere near me to protect – infact the newish MP facilitated a new EC at a clp AGM within weeks of Starmer’s installation. He’s happy he did, no doubt – I’m glad he did too.

      4. qwertboi – It’s an unfortunate fact of life when you belong to a small minority.

      5. “when you belong to a small minority”

        Bless! WEF-Trilateral Billionairism is so mainstream, popular and windespread.. in parts of the Conservative party

  3. Something tells me they know they won’t be able to look him in the eye after the result is announced.
    Utter cowards, as expected!

    1. They are both brass necked enough for anything Timfrom. Not being able to look Jeremy in the eye because of the appalling way they have treated him would require a level of decency and honesty that neither of them possess so whatever their reason for staying away its not that- they are shameless.

  4. My understanding based on previous behaviour is that the NEC decisions can be over-ridden or quashed, so… don’t hold your breath.
    Rules are there to be broken as are pledges.

  5. Ignorance, Arrogance, Callowness, Denseness, Controlled, Amateurish, Unprofessional, Emotionlessness, Ice Cold or just straight up Thatcherite TORY Neoliberalism!


    Motion for Labour’s ruling body to restore whip to Jeremy Corbyn is defeated
    Vote put forward by two left-wing National Executive Committee members loses with 23 votes against and 14 in favour

      1. goldbach – Ambivalent.
        I think that Corbyn has made a massive tactical error. Effectively the NEC has now voted to endorse the removal of the whip from Corbyn.

  7. Starmer would not have restored the whip in any case.
    So, no change to the situation.
    Not sure what the “tactical error” was. Corbyn didn’t apply to the NEC for reinstatement. The proposal came from some NEC members, and he isn’t one of them.

    1. goldbach – Well the fact is that before today the NEC hadn’t endorsed the suspension of the whip from Jeremy and today they have. I would find it very difficult to believe that the two members of the NEC that proposed this motion didn’t consult JC first.

      1. goldbach – Jeremy is now in a worse position than he was this morning.

      2. So, no difference to his situation then. Unless someone was to imagine that, in the next couple of years, there could be circumstances in which the right controlled NEC would vote to reinstate the whip or Starmer would change his spots. But that would just be living in cloud cuckoo land.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: