Starmer’s former chief whip loses whip after unspecified ‘complaint’ to party

Nick Brown suspended pending investigation but party has not said what complaint was about – is the former chief whip, sacked for quietly supporting Corbyn’s reinstatement, the victim of another factional manoeuvre?

Nick Brown MP (official parliamentary portrait)

Nick Brown – the MP who was Keir Starmer’s ‘chief whip’ responsible for discipline among MPs until Starmer’s reshuffle last year – has had the Labour whip withdrawn after a complaint to the party about him.

Labour is not saying what the complaint is – and Brown has said that he doesn’t know, but he has been suspended pending investigation leading to the automatic withdrawal of the whip. For the time being, Brown now sits as the independent MP for Newcastle-upon-Tyne East.

According to Labour sources, Brown was sacked by Starmer because he was advocating for the reinstatement of Jeremy Corbyn. It would surprise few to find that the MP has fallen victim to the type of factional ploy that the right has unhesitatingly used against the left or anyone who even shows fair-mindedness toward them.

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. Nick Brown was a chief whip under Gordon Brown and was dismissed by Ed Milliband. Milliband replaced him with Rosie Winterton. When Jeremy Corbyn took over as leader he let Rosie stay in place and got no thanks for it. She was disloyal and participated in the coup.
    Following the coup Jeremy Corbyn appointed Nick Brown Chief Whip. Jeremy is said to have chosen Nick Brown because he liked the way Nick dealt with dissent and Nick was loyal to him. Nick was later dismissed from the post by Starmer.
    It is completely typical of Starmer that Nick Brown does not know why he lost the whip- fairness and openness are not concepts Starmer’s Labour is familiar with.
    Nick Brown although not a Socialist served Jeremy well and loyally so I would hazard a guess that his “offence” will be “antisemitism” the usual catch all excuse for disciplining anyone who respects Jeremy Corbyn, a great labour leader who was much maligned but refused to descend into the gutter with his detractors.

    1. Jeremy is said to have chosen Nick Brown because he liked the way Nick dealt with dissent and Nick was loyal to him.

      Seems to me that many of the rodents got away with FAR too much under brown’s tenure.

      Allowing keef to make policies on the fly (There’s your thanks, Nicholas)

      ‘You’re a f***ing antisemite’

      “I’ll stab him in the front”

      No. Discipline went down the pan under brown. Didn’t see too much evidence of loyalty neither – both as demonstrated above.

      1. Toffee, no sure the lack of discipline in the PLP was down to Brown. I sort of remember Hodge been threatened with the removal of the Labour’s whip but, McDonnel rather than Brown speaking against it and allowing Hodge to keep the Labour’s whip.
        We need to remember too, that Corbyn was forever apologising to his enemies, while unable to stand up for his friends (Livingstone, Williamson) Somehow I don’t believe it was Brown pushing Corbyn to keep apologising but rather McDonnel.

      2. but, McDonnel rather than Brown speaking against it and allowing Hodge to keep the Labour’s whip

        Then brown obviously wasn’t suited to the position and if what you say is correct, this again shows there was was lax discipline.

        Unless there was something hanging over brown that could be used against him back then…Which would reinforce the case that he was never suited to be the chief whip.

  2. It’s really quite unbelievable that Nick doesn’t know the reason why he’s had the Whip removed.
    Maybe he’ll find out through one of the party’s favourite Twitter account holders.
    Or has he dared to comment on Starmers lack of interest in following the Forde report recommendations.

    1. Does anyone know what the reasoning is for not informing people what the complaint against them is at the outset? I mean it’s tantamount to the police arresting someone, but not telling them what they’ve been arrested for!

    2. Back of beyond…Old Nick is basically saying in political speak “No comment” and will now start to call in the favours over many years of intimidation,threats and vulnerabilities that hes a master of.
      Old Nick knows where the bodys are buried and his no shrinking violet…..Starmer and fatty Evans are moving into uncharted waters against one of their own blairites OLD NICK!

      1. I agree Joseph, Brown would have the Labour’s whip back well before the next General Election, the reason for his suspension nothing to do with antisemitism, but rather a complaint from a CLP’s member over something or other?
        Basically, Starmer wishes to appear “fair” after removing the whip from Corbyn and Webbe. Look, look Starmer is saying, I am removing the whip from an MP that isn’t a member of the SCG. I am fair and take all complaints seriously.
        While at the same time, making it clear that no member of the PLP is safe. If he can withdraw the Labour’s whip from Brown without giving a reason, he can do the same for any other MP. After all, as you correctly pointed out, Brown knows were the bodies are buried and the same cannot be say for the members of the SCG, for example.

  3. Came across the following earlier whilst doing some research – ie in a survey conducted in Australia last year regarding the Holocaust:

    People who are on the ‘left’ of the political spectrum are somewhat more likely than people in the ‘centre’ or the ‘right’ to have ‘excellent’ or ‘very good’ knowledge of the Holocaust, and Holocaust awareness too

    The survey was conducted in September 2021 and followed by the analysis of the findings. There were more than 70 questions posed in the surve with 3,522responses from Australian adults across all states and territories, making it the largest survey of its type ever undertaken.

    And as just about everyone on the left knows, they are the least likely to harbour any ill-feeling towards Jewish people. Or any other minority for that matter. I mean does it make sense that those who believe in and aspire to a fairer and more equitable society and redistribution of wealth etc would be people who are at the same time racially prejudice. It doesn’t add up or make sense of course.

    1. Nothing in the report is at all surprising. We have all known these things for most of our lives: socialists school themselves away from all forms of colour, race and religious prejudice. They know that such propensities prevent people from uniting around campaigns for social justice and economic democracy.
      What socialists tend to forget or find difficult to understand is that imperialists and capitalists have no respect for truth, are unashamed of deceptive conduct, regard lying as justifiable and care for nothing except profit, the power it brings and the profits from power.
      Any socialists who, for a moment, credited the charges of antisemitism against their comrades, need their heads examined. Unfortunately such comrades include most of Corbyn’s closest advisors, if not the poor man himself.
      Capitalism is not just another way of organising the economy it is the distillation of all the evil in human history. To compromise with it is to become an accessory.

      1. Oh, is that right Bevin? Funny, cos I thought Jeremy said that the claims of anti-semitism had been dramatically over-stated by political opponents inside and outside the Party and the media, and was then as good as thrown out of the LP for doing so. No? Have I got that wrong?

        The reality is – as I’m sure you know – that if he denied or refuted the A/S claims, he was castigated and condemned and vilified by his political enemies and the Israeli lobby/Jewish newspapers and the MSM for doing so and, as such, was forced to go along with it to a large extent. In other words, he was in a no-win situation.

        The A/S black op smear campaign first really kicked off with the Naz Shah/Ken Livingstone episode at the end of April, 2016, and THIS was the response when Jeremy denied that there was an antisemitism crisis:

        ‘Labour in crisis over ‘anti-semitic’ scandal: MPs demand Corbyn gets his ‘head out of the sand’ after Red Ken is SUSPENDED for claiming Hitler backed moving the Jews to Israel….’

        Jeremy Corbyn tonight denied Labour was facing an anti-Semitism crisis despite being forced to suspend his old friend Ken Livingstone for claiming Hitler was a ‘Zionist’.

        Mr Livingstone made the incendiary comments as he waded into the row over anti-Semitic Facebook posts by Labour MP Naz Shah, who was suspended by Mr Corbyn yesterday after hours of pressure.

        As the row escalated, the former mayor of London was branded a ‘Nazi apologist’ by Labour MP John Mann in an ugly public spat outside the Millbank TV studios in Westminster.

        Senior Labour MPs tonight expressed horror at the attempt to play down the explosive row, which has rocked the party just a week before crucial elections.

        Former minister Ian Austin told MailOnline: ‘Just seven days from polling day and instead of knocking on doors like the rest of us, Ken Livingstone is treating us to his weird views on Adolf Hitler and his offensive views on Jewish people.

        ‘The media are talking about nothing else, the party is having to suspend people on almost a daily basis and Jeremy thinks there’s no problem?’

        Mr Austin continued: ‘It looks like a pretty big problem to everyone else. Labour’s reputation is being destroyed and instead of pretending there’s no problem Jeremy needs to act and he needs to act now.’

        John Woodcock, a senior backbencher, told MailOnline: ‘Many thousands of Labour members will be bewildered by the hideous remarks of Ken Livingstone and are looking to Jeremy Corbyn to swipe the moment and tackle Labour’s anti-Semitism problem.

        ‘He must not bury his head in the sand in the face of this madness.’

        Yep, briefly alluding to an historical fact was ‘transformed’ into anti-semitism, something odious and hateful and diabolical….. and Ken a Nazi apologist.

      2. Yerse, isn’t it funny how Naz Shah’s facebook posts (from 2014 and before she was an MP) should just happen to come to light just nine/ten days before the local elections – ie the first elections as of Jeremy becoming leader. How fortuitous for Jeremy’s enemies!!

  4. Anyway, I was just about to post the following (which I ALSO came across earlier) when I saw Bevin’s reply and, as such, felt compelled to respond to it – ie a bunch of letters in the Guardian in August 2015 defending Jeremy:

    ‘Jeremy Corbyn and antisemitism claims’

    NB The letters were in response to a Guardian article about claims made about Jeremy in a Jewish Chronicle article. What *I* found particularly interesting though is that the vast majority of the comments (I must have read getting on for a hundred of them) were supportive of Jeremy – ie pre all the shills signing up and forever slagging him off!

  5. I don’t know if Brown is guilty of anything or not but Labour’s practice of failing from the outset to disclose to the accused person the nature of the allegations made against them makes me very concerned about how Labour would conduct itself in Government. It’scertainly very reminicent of how Starmer behaved when DPP in cases like that of Paul Gambaccini & others. and him a supposed “Human Rights Lawyer” as well- don’t make me laugh.

    1. Agree. Starmer and his supporters seems to have an aversion for fair and open processes and natural justice. Which is a big danger for us all when he gets in government. I think he’d be the kind to scrap the human rights act without parliamentary oversight.

  6. Let’s not worry about the details of a claimed complaint against Brown or the possible reason/s for it – after all Nick Brown is a street fighter himself, and hardly likely to be a victim of unfounded accusations here – but, instead, look at the fascist-like techniques that Sir Keir and his ‘new world order party management’ are deploying. They are crystal clear:

    – unspecified accusation
    – punishment before a possible accusation of transgression can be validated, scoped and presented to the wider party
    – compliance from the accused.

    If I’d just had the whip suspended and I felt it was wrong, I’d be telling the world and its BBC dog about it. Why isn’t Brown?

    Why’s Starmer doing it?

    Because Starmer knows that he has disabled and denatured Labour already, reduced membership by c 200,000 plus, publicly stated that as PM he will not support strikes. He know sthat the Powers-that-Be are going to need him and his ‘Second Eleven’ to step-up, kiss HMQ’s hands and become PM of UK PLC.

    Starmer’s proving he is worthy of the oligarchs’ confidence.

  7. qwertboi And on another note I am extremely pleased to here that Oxford scientists have developed a vaccine against malaria the scourge of the third world….I presume that it will be tested properly despite the urgency for it amongst many poor countries.Medicine should always be what it says on the tin and I applaud the Oxford scientists if they have truly found a world changing vaccine unlike the cowboy big pharma covid con
    .Amongst all the bad news its good to hear about somthing truly life changing for the poor of this world who mainly carry the burden of the ignored killer diseases that have flourished under the the covid scam……
    …Steve H….and all of you that bankroll the establishment labour party….please don’t forget to get your booster jabs thats now ready for you…!You shouldn’t have to worry much about energy costs in the future….it cures anything much like Putin managed to disappear the virus in under two weeks of liberating the Donbass

    1. Hi Joseph. Sorry to do a downer on your malaria point, but it might not be quite as positive as you’re being lead to believe.

      Every first year biologist or doctor-to-be knows that malaria is a bacterial illness caused by parasites (infected mosquitoes and dirty water). A vaccine only works against viruses (not bacteria) by working on a person’s DNA/RNA: Malaria isn’t (in the main) caused by a virus. “The Science ™️” and proper science seem not to agree here on this. Read the report again maybe? (send me a link?) It might be some “clever footwork” being done by a pharmaceutical PR Dept to pass it off as medical science, because it’s not (as you present it above) valid science.

      FWIW old polio vaccines that seriously damage a person’s liver and don’t work half as well as mega-dosing sodium/magnesium/calcium ascorbate (vit c), and augmenting a person’s iodine hormone activity, are being re-packaged as ‘monkeypox’ vaccines. Dangerous!! Fraudulent and criminal. ‘Monkeypox’ is also a bacterial disease, not a viral one. We’re in the middle of a massive WEF Scam at the moment – and the lies never stop.

      1. qwertboi…..Oxford mail and various other media india Aljazzeera covered the malaria story but being cautious I flagged it up to you as I am not a man of science although I am cautious about most things coming from the media….Oh well maybe tommorow someone somewhere will cure these deseases although poverty is the worst of them and its spreading.

      2. Thanks Joseph – Ah…. Al Jazeera seems keen on promoting vaccines for everything. I’ve often wondered if its the owners of it (maybe they have a massive pharmaceuticals holding). The Indian Gov even insisted they make a correction broadcast when they promoted a vaccine for malaria recently, which Indian Pharmaceutical companies knew is impossible because sterilisation kills malaria not DNA/RNA medicines.

        I’m supposing is the story you originally quoted?

      3. quertboi….Aljazzera was one of a few that I read on malaria and maybe its a case of people like me who see so much misery caused that I want a cure to be true for malaria and hopefully dengue fever that nearly saw me off.I am maybe seeing what happens when gullable frightened people grasp at the majority did with Covid….thanks again and off to bed now.

      4. ‘Monkeypox’ is also a bacterial disease, not a viral one.

        Interesting qwerboi (got it right this time!). Nothing I’ve read about it describes it as a bacterial disease, only a viral one from the same family as smallpox. Bacterial infections can develop from it, which is the closest I’ve come. Perhaps you have a link?

      5. @PW
        Monkeypox is definitely classed as a virus-caused illness. I shouldn’t have said it was not viral, i didn’t mean to. Foggy brain or rushed post. What I think I meant to convey was that its pathogenesis is more like a bacterial illness than (say) a respiratory illness. You probably know where and how CDC and WHO say this (despite the latter giving MPX a fake PHEIC) – i.e. the need for a vaccine is almost non-existent except for the immuno-compromised and their care-workers.

        Years ago I worked on a chickenpox vaccine and know that orthopoxes are morphologically indistinguishable under microscope. (Smallpox, chickenpox, monkeypox & maybe the other herpespoxes too look the same). I suspect the new MPX vaccines are actually aimed at the much more profitable chickenpox market

      6. Malaria is caused by protozoa of the genus Plasmodium – Plasmodium falciparum causes the most severe malaria, if I remember my first year biology correctly. Protozoa are eukaryotic organisms, and not bacteria.

      7. Malaria isn’t a bacterial disease, it’s caused by protozoa of the genus Plasmodium. Plasmodium falciparum causes the most severe disease, if I remember my first year biology correctly, and it’s a eukaryotic organism and not a bacterium

      8. Apologies – when my first comment didn’t appear, I tried again, then they both appeared. I’m not trying to do a SteveH and take over by saying the same thing over and over, I promise…

  8. Joseph, +1 on the positive news re malaria. I recently returned from Ghana, where the disease is prevalent and, though immunity amongst the Ghanaians is high (and the susceptibility of visitors contributes to a dampening of tourism income) it was only when there that I learnt that this immunity becomes compromised if Ghanaians spend extended time out of the country – working, studying – such that on their return they are considerably more vulnerable. The extent to which diseases circumscribe our interactions with others – often exaggerated by ignorance (as with HIV) – is significant so any steps toward the containment or even eradication of these are always to be celebrated.

    1. TW – I never realised that temporarily absent Ghanians were more susceptible to malaria when they return. Thanks Tim. It kinda makes sense though, because malaria is bacterial and one’s own (‘immune system’) ability to resist bacterial infection and toxins is set by one’s environment (i.e. the bacteria and toxins one encounters on a daily basis).

  9. I can’t recall how long ago it was that I first commented on a report on this site, but it was a number of years ago and the comment related to the LP’s useless Complaints, Discipline and (lack of) Appeals Procedures. Nothing substantive has change over the years.
    Any policy worth its salt should:
    *Ensure that anyone who has had a complaint lodged against them should be told of the detail of the complaint and who has made it.
    *Ensure that no sanction is applied until, and unless, the complaint has been fully investigated, a discipline panel has reached a decision and, if the person about whom the complaint has been made elects to go to appeal, an appeals panel has upheld that decision.
    Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose.

  10. I could never understand why posting a graphic representation of the State of Israel in the centre of a map of America is in any way anti-Semitic? If I say that Israel is the 51st State of America, that too must be anti-Semitic, thus making the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism the only criteria & no criticism of Israel allowed. Whatever happened to ‘Freedom of Speech?’ ah yes, hijacked by GB News.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: