Analysis Breaking Exclusive News

Exclusive: full resignation letter of 10 Cumbrian CLP officers over ‘toxic’ leadership

All but one officers quit over ‘factionalist’ expulsion of members including County Councillor – and over Labour right’s racism, misogyny and homophobia

Expelled Cllr Alan McGuckin

Almost the entire elected executive of Penrith and the Border constituency Labour party (CLP) has resigned in protest at the party’s ‘toxic’ and factional abuse of disciplinary processes to wage war on left-wing members.

Ten out of eleven CLP officers quit their positions in disgust at the regime’s conduct, as they explained in detail in their letter to the party and others about their decision:

To Whom It May Concern,

It is with great disappointment that Penrith and the Border Constituency Party has learned of the expulsion from the Labour Party, of long-standing member, activist, and Cumbria County councillor, Alan McGuckin. This expulsion, among the recommencement of factionalist exclusion of members, is demonstrative of an unnecessary recommitment to the “toxic culture” described within the findings of the Forde Report (referred to herewith as ‘FR’) (C1.35). At a time when the working class is bearing the brunt of a deepening cost-of-living crisis, when Labour – a democratic socialist party by definition – must embody the most steadfast opposition to the violence of the Tory Party, we find that resources of the Party are being utilised frivolously to exclude experienced, hard-working councillors and members instead (Sec. E, p.101). These expressed concerns are entirely warranted and are supported by the Labour Party Rule Book and by the findings of the Forde Report, commissioned by the Party, that remains unacknowledged, unaddressed, and unacceptably, unacted upon.

The FR has revealed the intensification of a hostile “mono culture” within the Party, wherein deeply entrenched factionalism (p.101) created a toxic atmosphere that actively harmed the Party. Left members and supporters of Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership were treated with suspicion, deep animosity and profound disrespect by senior role holders, through factional resource allocation and strategy, pages of documented vitriol, and by the disciplinary procedure, that was found to be “not fit for purpose”(C1.9, p.29; p.35; p.7, C4.23, p.92). Party staff, who have an obligation within their roles to maintain “perfect neutrality” (C1.8) steadily and flagrantly departed this requirement for the disseminated belief that the Party needed to be ‘saved’ from the Left (C2.26, p.44). Left MPs were not afforded technical assistance for online abuse directed towards them, as centre and Right MPs were. Members and potential selection candidates were subjected to a search tool ‘validation process’ whereby the report found factional decisions made by GLU staff played a substantial role in implementing the objective which was of the direct intent to “remove ballots from individuals who would otherwise have voted for Jeremy Corbyn” (C2.25). Further, the report stated it does not seem “credible to suggest that the exercise (in particular the social media component) was not targeted at applicants and members on the Left” (C2.25). The FR, agreeing with Kerslake Review, stated that a “culture of factionalism and bad behaviour has become embedded in the organization” (p.5 quoted in FR, E3.4, p.104). The NEC Codes of Conduct explicitly states that all codes of conduct and NEC statements form part of the “agreed relationship between individual Labour Party members”, which would also include those in positions of power (LPRB, p.124). Labour, as a broad church, requires a genuine mutual endeavour relationship – and that requires a foundation of respect – this, as the FR states, was found “lacking” (C1.36).

Meanwhile, complaints ranging from homophobia and discrimination to sexism/misogyny, anti-disability as well as many forms of racism(s) (p.81) from staff were left unaddressed and allowed to “fester”. This contributed to the feeling that specific problems were only dealt with when it was “politically expedient and/or essential” (C6.9, p.82). We note in particular in the findings of the FR that,

“Working for the Party, with the aims and values to which it lays claim, should be a collective endeavour; there will always be disagreements about policy or strategy, but we would have expected them to be dealt with in a comradely – or at least respectful – manner and in an environment which permitted healthy debate. Instead – in a period we are considering – we have been shocked to find the existence of a toxic atmosphere, which appears to have been fueled by an entrenched factionalism, but also by some worrying discriminatory attitudes including racism and sexism exhibited amongst some senior staff” (p.101).

Members’ complaints, filed within the Party procedure at a regional level, have gone unanswered e.g. most recently a point of order raised at North East Regional Conference 2022 regarding the treatment of the BAME network. A quantitative examination should be utilised to determine the extent and consequence of staff hours which were drawn away from attending to complaints of protected equalities, and redirected to target the Left.

Additionally, it cannot be ignored that AM raised a point of order at the same Regional Conference, specifically speaking against factionalist behaviour regarding ballots for the Regional Executive Committee elections. The timing of AM’s investigation, incl. the inconsistency of reasons for being investigated, is notable.

We have considered the timings of AM’s investigations in the light of comments in the FR regarding implications for individual members of the Rules approved at the 2021 National Conference, in relation to the Proscribed Acts and Prohibited Acts,

“…We do have continuing concerns – in particular, in relation to the use of lengthy administrative suspensions and sanctions on individual members deemed to have supported newly proscribed organisations” (p.92).

With regards to the NEC, the FR conceded the committee’s ability to utilise its “absolute discretion” to designate an organisation at odds with the aims and values of the Party, and maintains the power to terminate membership of those who support any such organisation. However, the FR points out how “support” is also freely able to be defined by the NEC, in its ‘absolute discretion’, pressing that the criteria “and process for so designating organisations (sic), along with the boundaries of the definition of ‘support’ must be fair and transparent (D2.44, p.98).

“Our investigations reveal that not only were successive systems unfit for purpose and susceptible to factional interference, and manipulation, but that the importance of a transparent, consistent and fair disciplinary process was not regarded as fundamental to the effective management of the Party and its membership, as it should have been” (D2.39, p.98-D2.46, p.99). These systems must operate transparently, within “published guidelines”, and “neutrally” (sic) (C2.28).

It is logical and absolutely within our rights as members to scrutinize and compare the findings of the FR to the current events taking place. It would be unethical, immoral, and additionally harmful to the Party and our fellow members to disregard the evidence for the ways in which this toxic culture has been allowed to continue in such a manner, as investigated within the FR. These events are not isolated, nor unrelated and will only be dealt with by graceful recognition, reflection, and accountability. This sentiment is echoed many a time over within the report in its recommendations: “Cultural growth, including the skill of deep listening, acceptance of differing traditions with the Party as legitimate, and compassion, need to be led and demonstrated by the leadership of the Party.” (p. 102).

“For a Party which seeks to be a standard bearer of progressive politics, equality, and workers’ rights, this is an untenable situation. The Party must live by its values and lead by example” (p. 81).

Factionalist expulsions are detrimental to comradery of the membership, to the vitality of the campaign efforts, and to the entirety of trust of the Party. These will only serve to further disengage members, and undoubtedly, many more will leave the Party. We, within Penrith and the Border CLP, are committed socialists to the cause of Labour and have demonstrated that time over by the contribution of time, labour, energy, support efforts and finances – not only to our CLP but to the surrounding CLPs and across the North as a whole. Consequently, this has damaged the reputation of a long-standing socialist, AM – and therefore has damaged the trust of the members listed here below.

It is with immediate effect that the following officers from the executive at Penrith and the Border CLP resign our posts and withdraw our labour in protest of the reprehensible treatment of AM on such unsubstantiated and capricious grounds. We send solidarity to AM and to the others treated in the same manner by their own party.

We request that you examine the case of AM and support his appeal against this expulsion, for the reasons detailed above.

Regards,

Jamie Penquite-Green, former Chair, and LGBTQ Co-ordinator
Danny Smith, former Secretary and IT Co-ordinator
Nicola Hawkins, former Vice Chair
Hilary Barker, former Vice Chair (Membership) and Disabilities Co-ordinator
Karen Lockney, former Political Education Officer, Cumbria County Councillor
Hilary Snell, former Women’s Officer
Dave Knaggs, former Communication and Social Media Officer
Jonny Alvarez-Buylla, former Youth Co-ordinator
Peter Doyle, former Policy Officer
Chris Coulthard, former Auditor

The group’s press release, in full, reads:

Labour CLP Executive – mass resignation

The vast majority of the executive committee of Penrith and the Border Constituency Labour Party have resigned from their posts, in protest at the expulsion from the party of long standing member Alan McGuckin.

10 of the 11 executive committee post holders have signed a letter to the Labour Party Northern Region office and the National Executive Committee, expressing their disappointment at learning of the expulsion of Alan McGuckin, and offering their resignation as a show of solidarity.

They have raised concerns about the ‘toxic culture’ within the Labour Party, as outlined in the recently published Forde Report, the investigative report commissioned by the Party to look into a previous leaked report and the circumstances around the leaking.

Their letter details the ways in which they believe Alan McGuckin’s expulsion must be viewed in the context of the findings of the Report, which showed that there was deeply entrenched factionalism within the Party where supporters of Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership were treated with suspicion and disrespect by senior role holders, and that Party resources were used factionally. In addition, the Report also finds that the Party was, ‘operating a hierarchy of racism and discrimination’.

Jamie Penquite-Green, former Chair of the CLP, said, ‘We have been shocked and saddened by the sudden expulsion of Alan, without any substantial dialogue with us as members or executive role holders. Had Alan not chosen to publicise his experience, any number of conclusions about his expulsion and reputation as a councillor could have been drawn. Members work extremely hard to campaign and elect solid councillors like Alan and it is disappointing to see that asset needlessly lost. It is only right to withhold our labour within these roles under these circumstances.’

Karen Lockney, former Political Education Officer, and a fellow County Councillor said, ‘It should not be a crime to express socialist views within a party that came out of the trade union movement and which is a voice for working people. We need people with Alan’s experience and insight in the Labour Party more than ever as we face the cost of living crisis.’

The outgoing executive members are not resigning their membership of the Party and former branch secretary, Danny Smith, said, ‘We will continue our campaigning and grass roots work to support our local community, and to speak out against the direction of travel the Tories are taking us in. We are still here for our community.’

The now-former executive members have not yet resigned their party memberships.

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.

104 comments

  1. So they’ve spewed it…And in doing so, will allow the keef-cultists to fill the vacuum while retaining membership and continuing to assist the party that treats them like shite.

    They should sack the smarmerist labour party off altogether if they REALLY want to make a difference. They want government…Let THEM do the graft on their own. Don’t pay them, don’t volunteer for them, don’t vote for them.

    You’ll only get more of what you’ve resigned your positions over.

  2. I wonder at the lodgic behind anyone who funds the labour party shitshow and pays them to piss all over us.They are litterly making a local stance and now are effectively finished in the labour party.

  3. Did Alan McGuckin reply to the NEC when he received his notification and declare that he had withdrawn and/or resigned from the LLA. He must have been well aware of the consequences and it looks like he made his choice.

    1. Where does it say that he’s made his choice?

      Looks to me – a d most normal people- that it was made for him.

      Or else what’s the appeal about?

      But then again it appears he spoke up about racism and misogyny….Perhaps it involved a black woman?

      …Perhaps that’s why you’ve naturally jumped to a conclusion again.

      1. Toffee – He was still a member of this Facebook group on 01/06/22. I can dig out the link is you doubt this.

      2. WT absolute F has a farcebook group got to do with anything? What am I missing here?

        I can’t find a date for the NE regional conference.

        And what date was he expelled?

        And was he aware he was expelled on that date?

        More importantly, were the party aware he was expelled on that date?

        …Or did they forget to tell him?

        Academic anyway. He’s been expelled. not his choice

      3. Toffee – I’ve no idea, you know how to use Google, use it.

      4. You’re the one claiming you have some sort of evidence…but NOT as to WHAT, and you’re reticent to provide it.

        Therefore, I’m gonna call out your usual irrelevance, obfuscation and bullshitting tactic.

    2. Steve, why can’t you admit there is no jusfitication for keir proscribing the organisations he’s proscribe-none of which ever did anything wrong- and that there is no reason for him to keep the purges going? Rather than just deflect, why can’t you admit Keir’s war on the Left has gone on more than long enough and should never have started?

      1. Two Cheeks
        The NEC have been told what to do by EHRC and Forde
        Should we sack the fuckers on the spot for Gross mismanagement

      2. Doug – Sack all those Union appointees and the democratically elected CLP and various other Reps, perish the thought.

      3. Spot on – the reason why these organisations
        were proscribed is a complete mystery. The
        NEC were never told what was wrong or
        what the evidence was . Instead there was
        a bit of arm-waving at the end of an
        excessively long NEC meeting .. and then
        the vote. Stalin would have been proud.

      4. HFM – You appear to be mistaken

        The Labour Party is set to proscribe three more organisations – the Alliance for Workers’ Liberty (AWL), the Labour Left Alliance (LLA) and the Socialist Labour Network – at a key meeting of the ruling body on Tuesday, LabourList can reveal.
        LabourList sources say AWL members are being banned from Labour on the basis that the group has acted as a separate political party, while LLA and Socialist Labour Network are being proscribed due to their close links to already proscribed organisations.
        Labour’s national executive committee (NEC) agreed to proscribe four groups – Socialist Appeal, Labour in Exile Network, Labour Against the Witchhunt and Resist – at a meeting in July last year. Supporters of the groups have since been auto-excluded from the party.
        https://labourlist.org/2022/03/exclusive-awl-among-three-more-groups-to-be-proscribed-by-labour-nec/

      5. Reply to Steve H
        You have posted about “proscribed” groups as if it were normal for a political party to “proscribe” certain legal organisations. Are you not embarrassed by this?

      6. Two Cheeks
        No
        Just the fuckers who are clearly corrupt and in the wrong party
        Bye

      7. The NEC isn’t the point here- I’m asking want YOU feel. There has never been an obligation for Labour members to unquestioningly defend every NEC decision- party members are allowed to have their own views on things like this. Why CAN’T you just admit that there’s no longer any reason to keep purging people, that, if anybody ever did deserve punishment, all those who had it coming have received it and Keir & Evans should move on? And no, do not put the word “Left” in quotes- there is nobody in the entire party who personally identifies as left-wing or a socialist who defends Keir’s antsocialist brutality.

      8. Ken – I think I’ve made it quite clear what my opinion is. I suggest that you reread the thread and pay particular attention to my reply to HFM at 9:50pm and to Smartboy at 4:08am

        I asked a very simple question right at the start of this discussion (3rd comment from the start)
        “Did Alan McGuckin reply to the NEC when he received his notification and declare that he had withdrawn and/or resigned from the LLA? “
        and surprise, surprise nobody has felt able to answer it.

      9. Smartboy, the wee nonce apologist”s almost proud of keef ordering the peers to abstain on voting to give children a school meal.

        Proscribing organisations and expelling people retrospectively for as much as posting a comment on their websites and denying those people justice** is a mere bagatelle to the nonce apologist

        ** And denying savile’s victims justice is nothing to be ashamed of. Deleting files about the original investigation is not to raise anyone’s suspicions ever further.

        Wee steve h apologises for nonces and child starvers….who by their very definition, are nonces.

        That’s all you need to know.

      10. Toffee – I’m neither proud nor ashamed, I’ve simply pointed out that this HofL Bill hasn’t even reached the HofC yet. With the Tories current majority of 70+ seats you can indulge in as much histrionics as you like but this vote wouldn’t have changed the eventual outcome. Labour obviously has an alternative strategy to achieve a similar or better outcome which will no doubt emerge in due course. This ‘School Bill’ has a fair way to go yet.

        Why wouldn’t you expel people who are working against the party. As I’ve said before “Did Alan McGuckin reply to the NEC when he received his notification and declare that he had withdrawn and/or resigned from the LLA.” or any of the past cases. They’ve obviously made there choice as to which organisation is more important to them.

        I’m not denying anyone justice, however you have yet to explain why you continue to disrespect Savile’s victims by rubbishing their opinions about Starmer’s culpability.

        I’m just thankful that you make it clear that you left the Labour Party decades ago.

  4. Who is the one?? I think we can safty say its not someone fighting fir the people. Well done but it took you long enough. You only stand down when its one of your own not the thousands you saw from elsewhere

  5. Yes, politically expedient ‘toxic culture’ Part 2. I respect their integrity and the choice that it produced.

    Let’s see what happens next. Maybe even a derailed Corbyn Interregnum and a profits-worsened Cost-of-Living Crisis can cause a “silver lining” to manifest on the factional mess that Starmer has reduced Labour to..

    1. qwertboi – Whatever the rights and wrongs may be I don’t recall there being much in the way of factionalism before 2015.

      1. Forgot militant have ya, soft ollies?

        The bliarite snides have been at it since Kinnock…

      2. Toffee – That’s quite a while a go. What did Militant actually achieve, even Jeremy Corbyn doesn’t approve of their methods. Maybe you harking back decades is part of the problem, the world has just moved on and left you behind.

      3. That’s right, me too. Once the 3rd-way entryists realised that Corbyn threatened their ideology, they became very factional about everything. Question is, was the toxic culture already embedded pre 2015 when most people hardly noticed it? I’d say, yes. You?

      4. qwertboi – I thought that all the self appointed guardians of ‘the left’ had gone off to join the likes of ‘Left Unity (I wonder, was the name intended to be ironic) and then they all decided to join Labour when JC rose to prominence and then left again when he stepped down.

      5. Toffee – It is nice that we can occasionally agree 😉

      6. No it ISN’T quite a while to go because it’s been going on SINCE then, you smarmy slimy little two-hat.

      7. That’s because, since 1987,internal democracy had essentially been non-existent within Labour- everyone was obligated to be continuity Thatcher- that’s why Kinnock persecuted Militant, because it, unlike him, actually disagreed with the Tory agenda- and dissent had been completely destroyed in the party. Labour was a dead zone- a dead zone that won a few elections, but we all know those victories had nothing to do with dissent and open debate on the issues having been banned in the party.

        And it’s not as simple as saying Keir had the right to unilaterally proscribe- and retroactively proscribe at that- innocent, harmless organisations whose only crime had been to fight for socialism, the concept which is the only justification for Labour’s existence, since Labour values can never be part of any government which accepts capitalism as permanent, as Blair did and as Keir does. Humanity and inhumanity can’t be part of the same system, the same structure.

      8. Prick, I was replying to qwertboi.

        I dont like nonce apologists and rabid smarmerite toerags, let alone agree with them

      9. Toffee – My email alert says different. In order to avoid confusion you should have clicked on qwertboi’s reply button instead of mine.

      10. I don’t recall there being much in the way of factionalism before 2015.

        Progress (1996);
        Tribune Group (1964);
        Militant (1964);
        SCG (1982);
        Socialist League (1932);
        Compass (influential think tank);
        Fabian Society (influential think tank);
        CLGA (1998);
        Blue Labour (2009);
        Labour First (1980 & 88);
        Labour Representation Committee (2004);
        Manifesto Group (1970s)

        Or how about factions formed around:
        Bevan;
        Gaitskell;
        Benn (‘hard left’);
        Foot (‘soft left’);
        Blair
        To name just a few.

        Just like any political party it has had, and will almost certainly continue to have, factions within it.

      11. Toffee – My email alert says different. In order to avoid confusion you should have clicked on qwertboi’s reply button instead of mine

        IDGAF what your email alert says.

        There was no reply option to qwertboi because he’d replied to your earlier post so I had to go through that to reply to qwertboi.

        Just like this post.

        But because my posts sometimes take a while to appear on the thread, you probly got your reply to qwertboi in first

        And you’re still a smarmerite nonce apologist.

        So do one.

      12. Toffee – It is an easy enough mistake to make but is you look you’ll find that qwertboi 6:34 comment has a reply button but my email alert as I said quite clearly shows that you mistakenly clicked on my 6:47 comment which is immediately below which led to the misunderstanding. It’s not a big deal, you made a mistake, get over it.

      13. “Toffee – My email alert says different. In order to avoid confusion you should have clicked on qwertboi’s reply button instead of mine.”

        He couldn’t. This entire conversation can only happen by using your ‘reply’ button (yours is the lowest). WordPress is only using two levels of reply. Annoying, i know. Three ‘d be better – let us develop conversations better too.

      14. qwertboi – or alternatively you could work out how to place comments where you want them to appear

      15. you could work out how to place comments where you want them to appear”

        Can’t be done Steveh: only two levels of reply. The software bplaces the post sequentially. Best to mention who you’re replying to.

      16. qwertboi – I agree that it is best to avoid confusion by mentioning who you are replying to but it is possible in most instances to place comments where you want. You just need to modify the link behind any ‘reply button’ on the same page.

      17. And what the hell were you doing sunshine in 2015 davidh Steve H.?
        Probably sat on your backside in a nice safe government job with a pension provided by the “people” and first chance you get turn all tory and despise your working class background from the Caribbean bolt hole…..Route 1 for working class tory boys…kick out the ladder “and deny your class “mr professional person” .remember?youve sold out on everything that matters.
        Steve H.Never run a Business or took a risk and frightened of your own shadow and nothing but contempt for your own class…absolutely sickening hypocrisy .
        Dont tempt me tory boy…!Good morning comrades !

      18. you’ll find that qwertboi 6:34 comment has a reply button

        Except I was replying to qwertboi’s post at 7:23pm which DOESNT.

        The nearest one is your post @6;42 pm, the post qwertboi replied to which I then made my comment on – the one agreeing with qwertboi.

        What a presumptuous gobshite, believing I’d ever agree with a would-be child starving nonce apologist .

      19. WGAF ?

        Well YOU obviously do, first thinking I’d ever agree with you, then thinking you’d got one over on me making your song and dance about trying to prove how I’d supposedly gone about it, thinking you’re ‘forensic’.like your idol’s supposedly meant to be.

        You didn’t even check the context as to what I was replying to – your narcissistic hubris automatically determined I was supposedly agreeing with you ;something about as likely to happen as a pigeon commanding a tank battalion.

        Unlucky – AGAIN

        Yet another fail. You’re just shite at everything. Except apologising for nonce cases. But that’s something to be ashamed of in normal society

      20. Toffee – Well the fact remains if you’d bothered to address your comment to qwertboi there wouldn’t have been any room for confusion in the first place. Please feel free to carry on manufacturing some more outrage. I just can’t be bothered. It’s gone midnight here and we’re off to bed.

    2. Steve, I wasn’t a Militant fanboy, but they did, whatever else might be said, run the only decent municipal government Liverpool ever had- and they were the first Labour group ever to WIN control of local government in Liverpool- the party had essentially refused, before the Eighties, to even try and win elections there, and preferred the disgusting Liberal-Conservative coalition that always ran the city against it, as is seen by the fact that Keir is forcing the current Liverpool “Labour” government to carry out Thatcherite policies and abandon the working- and – kept from working by capitalism poor- the groups you yourself think Labour should abandon, just as you have proved that, in giving robotic support to Keir’s abandonment of all major differences with the Tories, you also support Labour abandoning Muslims, Travellers, the Irish, the Black community(only the left-wing of Labour opposes anti-BAME prejudice) Jewish antizionistss(you’ve still not admitted it was unconscionable for Gentiles to ever accuse Jews of antisemitism) leftists, idealists, trade unionists and youth, while embracing former Tory MPs, the rich, Ulster Unionists and even the Orange Order hate group.

      Never mind that there’s nobody who’d vote Labour, but only if it made all the reactionary choices Keir has made, and never mind that Keir has no even mildly left-of-centre ideas at all.

      Why do you want politics to be pointless and irrelevant to anyone’s lives, Steve? Why do you endorse the idea that it’s enough to get your “side” in, even if they’ve pledged to keep things completely unchanged?

      1. I rather disagree with you Ken Birch. From the
        early 20th Century to the mid 1980s politics in
        the North West was very much mixed up with sectarianism. In parts of Liverpool if you were Protestant you voted Conservative and –
        significantly – Unionist, ie they were for the
        continued Union of Ireland and the UK.

        If you were Catholic you voted – Labour,
        and Irish Nationalist. On 12th July each
        year the Orange Lodge were engaged
        with triumphalist marching and this led to
        street fighting. Politics and Religion were
        inter-twined and it was difficult to tell
        where one stopped and the other
        started. However divide and rule
        ‘as any fule no’ was the REAL
        reason for in Northern Ireland this
        meant that so long as
        there was division the rulers could get
        away with poverty and deprivation.

        It was the mid 1980s when the workers
        clocked this – thus Thatcherism begat a
        Labour Liverpool ..

        However as pointed out – there has always
        been a left wing who have argued their point
        of view – but these have been tolerated,
        Harold Wilson was a leader who famously
        argued back – and the result was a better
        policy for the inconsistencies had been
        spotted and sorted.

        AS for 2015 when apparently “entryists”
        joined I laughed because I joined then
        and am not very left wing – but just Old
        Fashioned 1945 Labour. I had not
        belonged to any party up to then but
        was angry because the then
        Labour Party did not seem bothered
        about Poverty and basic Social Justice.

      2. Ken – It’s not Keir forcing them to do anything, the government appointed Commissioners are the ones now calling the shots in Liverpool,

        It’s happened on keefs’ watch.

  6. Wee fellas a certain.

    He posts some utter tripe about a farce book group and a date which near no context at all because theres no reference to any timeline within the article.

    Then he reckons there’s been NO. factionalism within the party.

    He’s either on drugs, or he should be.

    1. Toffee – The LLA were proscribed in March, Alan McGuckin was still a member of the LLA Facebook Group on 01/06 and he was expelled on 29/07. As for filing in the rest of the recent timeline, I don’t know, you could try asking SW.

      1. Then make as much clear when you post.

        And even then post with certainty instead of posting more conjecture.

        And it STILL doesn’t gloss over KEEF’S shithousery. I don’t remember Corbyn proscribing any ersatz-tory organisations within the party or expelling members for the merest link to them, and doing so retrospectively.

        Nowadays it seems you’ll only be left alone if you are affiliated to a faux-toerag faction. How long until it’s a requirement?

  7. all the self appointed guardians of ‘the left’
    The gotl label is pure propaganda-speak. I don’t recognise the label or the type in a Labour – or Left Unity – context. If they exist at all, they’re certainly not democratic socialists but maybe run S E P groups for the WSWS. Watson’s description of SCG-supporting Labourites as ‘trotskyists’ is the same factionaal terminolgy that I called propaganda speak above and is to me evidence of his anti-socialist zeal.

    Re Jeremy growing the membership by attracting non-aligned socialists to Labour. You’d be surprised how few there were – and that a good chunk of the probably smaller number than you think didn’t become “the dearly departed” from end-2019 to date. Truth is Jeremy actually “made” new socialists, like the Independent Labour Party did in the 1890s through to WWI. Believe me the 200+ – 250,000 who became the ‘dearly departed’ have not, in the main, joined other parties. I haven’t. Everyone I. know who left hasn’t. That’s why we frighten Starmer and his clique so much.

    1. qwertboi – That is not how jpenney (we haven’t seen him for a while?) a member of Left Unity and once a regular contributor to these pages described it.

      1. I miss his posts (and Linda Lundie ‘lundiel”). I respected Penney’s reasoning, his posts made me think I’d enjoy spending time with him. On a couple of occasions, though, I felt like he saw himself as a gotl, but, as I say, democratic socialists tend not to adopt purist and inflexible styles, preferring persuasion and consensus

      2. All this talk of left/right is meaningless especially today with instant information, I think we have all read a thing and agreed with it, only to find it is from a Politically Opposite site/person and entirely baffled looking for an error in that.
        We are all just people, tags and labels are optional and stuck on us post birth.
        Essentially there are ONLY:
        The PEOPLE who fight for the Benefit of ALL The PEOPLE.
        And
        The PEOPLE who fight for the Benefit of Themselves and the Elitist Establishment!
        In these Complex times of information overload, we really should be simplifying everything to it’s bare bones, remove all the Old World Order imposed Propaganda and Fluff from our lives. They are litterally spinning us like a top! We need to step out of the Mainstream get rid of ÀLL THEIR Manufactured Labels, Desires and start to live a life of WANTING what we NEED and NOT NEEDING what we WANT!
        Then the Propagandists can come as they will with whatever divission tactics they wish, but they have lost all/any control!
        For now the “Guardians of the left” will remain the banished, The “UNDESERVING POOR”, but HILARIOUSLYN they still EXPECT OUR VOTE!

  8. In an earlier discussion I mentioned a speech by a prominent politician which was echoed in an article in the FT. heres a transcript of a part of the speech:
    “The situation in the world is changing dynamically and the outlines of a multipolar world order are taking shape. An increasing number of countries and peoples are choosing a path of free and sovereign development based on their own distinct identity, traditions and values.

    These objective processes are being opposed by the Western globalist elites, who provoke chaos, fanning long-standing and new conflicts and pursuing the so-called containment policy, which in fact amounts to the subversion of any alternative, sovereign development options. Thus, they are doing all they can to keep hold onto the hegemony and power that are slipping from their hands; they are attempting to retain countries and peoples in the grip of what is essentially a neocolonial order. Their hegemony means stagnation for the rest of the world and for the entire civilisation; it means obscurantism, cancellation of culture, and neoliberal totalitarianism.

    They are using all expedients. The United States and its vassals grossly interfere in the internal affairs of sovereign states by staging provocations, organising coups, or inciting civil wars. By threats, blackmail, and pressure, they are trying to force independent states to submit to their will and follow rules that are alien to them. This is being done with just one aim in view, which is to preserve their domination, the centuries-old model that enables them to sponge on everything in the world. But a model of this sort can only be retained by force.
    This is why the collective West – the so-called collective West – is deliberately undermining the European security system and knocking together ever new military alliances. NATO is crawling east and building up its military infrastructure. Among other things, it is deploying missile defence systems and enhancing the strike capabilities of its offensive forces. This is hypocritically attributed to the need to strengthen security in Europe, but in fact quite the opposite is taking place. Moreover, the proposals on mutual security measures, which Russia put forward last December, were once again disregarded.

    They need conflicts to retain their hegemony. It is for this reason that they have destined the Ukrainian people to being used as cannon fodder.

    It is clear that by taking these actions the Western globalist elites are attempting, among other things, to divert the attention of their own citizens from pressing socioeconomic problems, such as plummeting living standards, unemployment, poverty, and deindustrialisation. They want to shift the blame for their own failures to other countries, namely Russia and China, which are defending their point of view and designing a sovereign development policy without submitting to the diktat of the supranational elites.
    I reiterate that the era of the unipolar world is becoming a thing of the past. No matter how strongly the beneficiaries of the current globalist model cling to the familiar state of affairs, it is doomed. The historic geopolitical changes are going in a totally different direction.”
    Expressed in somewhat different language from that employed by Professor Helen Thompson, but essentially making the same points.

    1. goldbach – “They are using all expedients. The United States and its vassals grossly interfere in the internal affairs of sovereign states by staging provocations, organising coups, or inciting civil wars. By threats, blackmail, and pressure, they are trying to force independent states to submit to their will and follow rules that are alien to them. This is being done with just one aim in view, which is to preserve their domination, the centuries-old model that enables them to sponge on everything in the world. But a model of this sort can only be retained by force.”

      It was Putin that invaded Ukraine an independent and autonomous state because his ego couldn’t accept that Ukraine wanted FA to do with his corrupt imperialist legacy ambitions.

      1. “…Putin that invaded Ukraine an independent and autonomous state because his ego couldn’t accept that Ukraine wanted FA to do with his corrupt imperialist legacy ambitions.”
        This is such obvious nonsense that it is a tribute to your honesty that you publicly endorse it. Suffice it to say that anyone who believes, firstly, that the Ukraine crisis, which has been ongoing since the 2014 coup, can be attributed to one man’s psyche really ought to have a keeper assigned to him, while, secondly, anyone who believes that the Russian state is moved by any individual, least of all the notoriously cautious and collegial Putin, is a complete fool. And might even, looking back on the history of the Labour Party believe that ‘factionalism’ began in 2015.

      2. Someone who point blank consistently refuses to accept any objective evidence based facts which totally destroy the delusional made up fantasy narrative in his own head needs to sort out their own gullibility rather than projecting it onto others.

        Goebbels would have loved a useless idiot like you steveH

    2. Can’t counter the argument? Then deploy a bit of pop psychology and unsubstantiated assertion.
      Classic disinformation strategy. Happy days.

      1. goldbach – Nothing of the sort, I’m simply pointing out the obvious that the two eastern power blocks are no different from the claims you make about the west. Don’t you agree that Putin is a corrupt dictator with imperialist ambitions. Face it Putin is just about as far away as it is possible to get from your socialist Utopia.

      2. No
        Putin is way ahead of American oligarchs and never ending war mongers
        A blind man with a shitty stick can see they all piss in the same pot
        Anyone for Tennis

      3. Corrupt? – Quite possibly. Most politicians are.
        Dictator? – No. If he were to take a course of action that was disapproved of by the majority in the government, he would be out.
        Imperialist ambitions? – No. Just wants to keep US imperialism well away from Russia’s borders.
        So what’s your criticism of Professor Helen Thompson’s argument?

    3. So goldach makes a very incisive post and (as intelligent people always do) invites comment and further analysis from us all (“the community’), which bevin incisively provides.

      SteveH’s contribution (‘it was RF that invaded Ukraine’) ostensibly relevant but hardly displaying any intelligent analysis, any clear-thinking to build on the hypothesis that goldbach’s article put forward.

      Next post from him = “bevin – Your gullibility is your problem, not mine.”

      FRriendly advice SteveH: can you not see that instead of considering and replying to bevin’s post, you immediately closed down the discussion with an ad-hominem insult? What does that say about you and your argument?

      (and FWIW, analytical, science-minded people (as all democratic socialists always are) instantly see the ad-hominem as a marker of defeat)

      1. qwertboi – What it says about his argument is that he hasn’t got one. He simply resorts to insult and simplistic characterisation designed to play on the emotions rather than engaging with the debate initiated by Professor Thompson’s article. It may be that it is unintentional, but he is deploying classic disinformation tactics.

  9. I agree there SteveH – Russia is ruled
    by Oligarchs – rich because when the
    USSR split up in 1991 – it was them who
    had the sharpest elbows who “acquired”
    State assets by dubious means.

    They were aided and abetted by the rich
    capitalists of the West including in 2000
    by Blair and Bush who with their friends
    “nurtured” Putin at the same time as
    he was pounding Chechnya to bits. They
    were terribly bad at “spotting” good Russian
    leaders whereas Thatcher to her due spotted
    Gorbachev. Corbyn called out Putin and
    asked Blair to condemn him:

    “When the Prime Minister travels to Moscow—I imagine that he is already on his way there—and meets President Putin this evening, I hope that he will convey the condemnation of millions of people around the world of the activities of the Russian army in Chechnya and of what it is doing to ordinary people there. When images of what is happening are translated into other parts of the world, many people are horrified, just as we are horrified by what happened to the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon on 11 September.

    If we are serious about the rule of law and human rights, we must be very careful to condemn abuses of human rights, whoever commits them, whoever they are committed against and however uncomfortable or inconvenient it is for us to do so. If we are not consistent, we will, understandably, receive the charge of hypocrisy.”

    1. HFW – “I agree there SteveH – Russia is ruled by Oligarchs ”
      SH didn’t actually say that. What he said was that Putin is a dictator, which is nonsense.
      And as for “oligarchs”, for the past few decades most of the world has been ruled by oligarchs including us …………………… and, of course, Ukraine.
      I believe that there is a story in the Christian tradition about ignoring the beam in one’s own eye. We and the US are pretty good at that.

      1. Number 1 – yes.
        Number 2 – no.
        Now what have these programmes got to do with Professor Thompson’s article or your dog-whistle comment about oligarchs.
        And don’t forget to let us know what you disagree with in Professor Thompson’s article and why?
        Try contributing to debate rather than to disinformation. It’s good for the soul (assuming that we have such).

      2. goldbach – Who are you trying to impress, yourself? 😏

      3. Do I take it that you haven’t read Professor Thompson’s article?

      4. goldbach – Whether I have or not is irrelevant, If you’ve got a point you that you want to make then make it. I’m simply not interested in wasting my time aiding you. I’ve got better things to do. Have fun😏

      5. Well, well, well.
        I awake to this.
        You haven’t read the article.
        You don’t have the grace to admit it.
        You divert by making irrelevant comments.
        As my granda used to say you’re “all piss and wind”.
        I return to my civil self for future comments.

      6. goldbach – You can presume whatever you like, I don’t much care either way, why would I.
        As I said above – If you’ve got a point you that you want to make then make it. I’m simply not interested in wasting my time aiding you. I’ve got better things to do. Have fun😏

      7. As an aside, one characteristic of narcissists is that they always have to have the last word.

      8. goldbach – Was that your rather feeble attempt to have the last word

  10. NB Russia/China vs “The West” is not a
    zero sum game. Putins invasion of Ukraine
    does not excuse the way the UK and US
    behaved over Iraq.

    1. HFM – I agree with you but Keir Starmer is a very different person from Blair and Keir was very publicly against the Iraq war.

      1. Toffee You are consistant in blaming the leader of the Labour party who has always shown a perverse defence of those who attack children and that includes Sir jimmy saville the conservative and unionist party and others who should have been brought to justice….One wonders whether its a type of perversion rather than perverse amongst the labour party leader and his shadowy cabinet….some would say sick!to instruct mps not to protect kids.This in know way absolves the PLP who followed the sick orders of the knight of the realm with the vast majority helping the torys to put the boot into hungry kids…..
        Just look at the massive waste of food thrown away unused in the House of horrors and you can see the contempt for the people of Britain when these subsidised pigs are at the trough….staggering whilst …..The country is drowning in sewage and water is rationed in one of the wettest and wealthiest countrys in the world…

      2. Anyone that would indifferently see children disadvantaged, let alone go hungry, let alone sexually abused is NEVER to be trusted, Joseph.

        There can be NO excuse for it whatsoever.

        None. You’re quite correct, it IS a form of perversion…As are the grotesquely subsidised commons restaurants & bars.

        Bastards get venison fricassee & foie gras, plus a bottle of chablis there for what you’d pay in the local alehouse for a pint o’ pish and a bag of ready salted.

        Let the bleedin’ lobbyists pay full whack for the MPs scran, instead of billing the hard-pressed taxpayer.

        And like Jesse Ventura suggested, make the politicians wear large sewn-on badges on their suits to show everyone just who they’re really representing.

    2. Or PRP’s autocracy (of which the covid-scam is merely an example). (If China with its one-party autocracy is a democracy, so then is UK and USA with their FPTP electoral systems at parliamentary/senate/legislative levels)

  11. Keir Starmer is a very different person from Blair

    And you call others gullible 😒

      1. Of course not. Their CV’s are entirely different…

        …Both barristers that became Westminster careerist megalomaniacs.

        ‘Nuff said.

        Wrong again.

      2. Illeagle, lammy, harman,straw….Not an exhaustive list.

        Others include jim (keef) vaz and umunna

        All clueless, all shithouses, all lawyers. Quite obviously a prerequisite to become a careerist ‘labour’ MP.

        But that’s ignorance, isn’t it?

      3. Two Cheeks
        Put it in your letter to Santa
        Not reached full immaturity yet
        Does your mother still tuck you in at night
        Give us your address and like good Socialists we will all chip in for a new DODO and BLANKIE
        Do you mind if its Black & White

      4. Toffee – I have to say that Starmer IS very different from Blair.
        Blair was a consummate liar and con man who was adept at pretending to have human feelings.
        Starmer is not so.

  12. “Russia is ruled by rich corrupt oligarchs & the invasion of Ukraine an act of abuse against humanity”…….agreed? What happens when we ask the same questions about Britain & America?

  13. As usual, Steve H seeks to, and succeeds in, obscuring the real story, in this article. Trying to make it about one man.

    There were 10 CLP officers who resigned, because of the toxic leadership of this Southside Labour Party – and – in support of – and – in solidarity with their Comrade, Alan McGuckin.

    Solidarity, with all 11 former Labour Councillors!

    1. Thanks George Peel: Toxic leadership, toxic culture, toxic factionalism – that’s the party management of Keir Starmer in a nutshell.

      Leave Labour, it’s being adulterated and corrupted by Sir Keir Rodney Starmer. A party that promotes Peace and Justice? It’s not Starmer’s Labor.

  14. Blair was a consummate liar and con man who was adept at pretending to have human feelings.
    Starmer is not so.

    Errr….Enough people were taken on by keef’s ten pledges.

    And keef pretends he knows what people’s struggles are with his daddy was a toolmaker but NEVER forget (Or forgive) the fact he directed those peers to abstain on giving the kids of those struggling that he professes to empathise with, a free meal at school.

    I think the similarities are stark, meself.

    1. Yes, a lot of people were taken in by Starmer, but it hasn’t taken too long for the scales to fall.
      Blair managed to fool many of the people for much of the time for the best part of a decade after the death of John Smith. I agree that there are similarities, but Blair was able to sustain the fiction for much longer. Maybe if he’d been more like Starmer he would have been rumbled sooner and we may not have sunk to our current depths.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: