Analysis Breaking

Video: Shadow EdSec Phillipson: real change isn’t a priority for a Labour government

Bridget Phillipson is a perfect fit for Keir Starmer’s front bench

Shadow Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson has provided yet another confirmation of the political and moral vacuum Keir Starmer’s ‘Labour’ represents.

Phillipson told the BBC that ‘structural change’ should not be a priority for a Labour government:

In other words, Labour has no interest in undoing the pillaging of public services and the mass theft of public resources perpetrated during 13 years of Tory government that are inflicting such misery and hardship while fattening the already-fat cats of the so-called ‘elite’.

No, just more piddling around the edges of the massive issues – like Phillipson’s horrendous front-bench colleague, Shadow Chancellor Rachel Reeves, who while cosying up to Tories and corporates can’t think of anything better to promise the struggling millions than to freeze the criminal gouging of fuel bills at the horrific level they’re now at. Phillipson is a perfect fit on Starmer’s front bench.

Democracy is dead when the two main parties are clones of each other.

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. Diet Tory

    0% values
    0% credibility

    *Produced in a factory that handles Tories’ may contain ‘austerity’

    1. I’d say being the only British-born politician who is an invited ‘member’ of the Trilateral Commission makes Starmer more true-blue, than tory-light. He’d certainly deny it, but Rachel Reeves is the validation.

      Even life-long tories felt uncomfortable with Starmerlabour’s posturing over mandatory ‘vaccination’ for NHS staff and Sir Keir’s “show-me-your-papers” outlook.

      1. I’d like to ask a question, if I may. Starmer’s membership of the Trilateral Commission is often mentioned, as is that he’s the only MP who’s a member. Why only him? I would have thought it would be packed with Tories – why Starmer, and not Sunak?

      2. Stark – If the TLC really is the threat some are so desperately trying to portray why has nothing of any substance been written about this organisation for literally decades?
        I’d also like to know why despite there being more than ample opportunities throughout the 2020 leadership campaign not one of his opponents, or journalists, or party members questioned him about his membership.

      3. “I’d like to ask a question, if I may. Starmer’s membership of the Trilateral Commission is often mentioned, as is that he’s the only MP who’s a member. Why only him? I would have thought it would be packed with Tories – why Starmer, and not Sunak?”

        Principally, Stark, because membership is by invitation only.
        Wiki tells us:
        “Membership in the Trilateral Commission is highly selective and by invitation only; as of 2021, there were roughly 400 members, including leading figures in politics, business, media, and academia. Each country within the three regions is assigned a quota of members reflecting its relative political and economic strength. The organization represents influential commercial and political interests that share a commitment to private enterprise and trade, multilateralism, and global governance; this has subjected it to criticism for elitism.”

        It’s not supporters club. Membership is an appointment, a gift, a verification that a person is of value to the merry band of David Rockefeller billionaires.

      4. “I’d also like to know why despite there being more than ample opportunities throughout the 2020 leadership campaign not one of his opponents, or journalists, or party members questioned him about his membership.”

        Of course the supposed journalists working for the billionaires’ free-press (also known as “the synchronised--MSM”) would not want to draw attention to Keir’s economic and political ties to/with those of their employers, but other leadership candidates and party members? Your guess is as good as mine.

      5. Thanks for the explanation, Qwertboi. It does surprise me, though, that Starmer’s the only MP invited to join, the only MP that, as you put it, has value to them, given that he’s only been an MP for 8 years, all of them spent in opposition.

      6. May I also suggest the excellent wikispooks as another source for the trilateral commission.

        Wikipedia for example, makes no mention that Nicola Sturgeon has attended a meeting.

        From information there, we can bet there will be some interesting people being employed as SPADs when judged by infiltration of US governments

      7. Starmer’s the only MP invited to join, the only MP that, as you put it, has value to them, given that he’s only been an MP for 8 years, all of them spent in opposition of the left

        Fixed! 👍😉

      8. I realised as soon as I submitted that I’d left out those important details – cheers, Toffee (from another Eagle constituent)

  2. Last weeks letters page of our local weekly “two minutes silence” advertising newspaper contained a contribution setting out an itemised list of failed and failing policies of the ‘Tory’ Government.

    Implicit here was the assumption that this could be remedied by a simple change of administration. Bringing in the ‘second eleven’ of the ‘Loyal’ (to whom and what?) Opposition, so to speak, without explicit consideration of basic questions such as:

    a) The present framework of ideas, along with their core assumptions, upon which the model those failing and failed policies are based?

    b) What framework of ideas and core assumptions are required to construct a model which is more likely to produce better, more robust and workable policies for the common good?

    c) Whether the framework of ideas and core assumptions of any potential ‘alternative’ administration differ sufficiently from the model which is failing so spectacularly?

    In every other endeavour of human activity, other than politics and how we administer ourselves, when something is very obviously not working – ie not doing what it says on the tin – basic questions are considered. Why is this not working? Are we doing it wrong? Are the core assumptions valid? And appropriate changes are enacted.

    As the physicist Albert Einstein observed, doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result represents insanity – in this case of a unique form which only people appear to be capable of generating and putting up with.

    There is little point in approaching such serious matters with an attitude which fails to tackle such failure due to what can only be interpreted as a puerile and wilful refusal to operate on the basis of the available evidence that considers such basic level considerations and the need for proper, professional structural change.

    Attempting such a tilting at windmills approach, along with its associated ignorant and arrogant mindset, which seeks to polish a turd which is rapidly collapsing is at the very least certifiable if not treasonable.

    This approach will end in multiple systems failure because its obvious to any competent real world experienced individual that more of the same paradigm/model and its failed/failing approach is dangerous nonsense.

    One thing is for sure, this is not a grown up approach by the Labour Party as an organisation, those within it who are pushing it, and those within it and without it who support it. The resulting harm will be very real and those responsible at all levels will one day be made accountable.

    1. Foreign writers and journalists recognise that the British electorate have no opposition. Ours continue to attack Jeremy Corbyn. Do our members of the filth estate see him as the Tories main enemy? Of course they all know where headroom and the shadow sits they just don’t know why they sit there.

      1. What was once referred to as ‘The Fourth Estate’ has long degenerated into a fifth column in this rapidly diminishing backwater collectively self-referred to as “The West” – what Mr Borrell calls ‘The Garden’ (containing as it does Borrell’s ‘Golden Billion’).

        Owned and controlled as its by a handfull of oligarchical corporate and individual entities who have most politicians in their back pocket – and those they don’t they destroy.

        Andrei Raevsky, AKA The Saker, hit the nail on the head recently. To paraphrase: “I don’t like the term ‘prestitute’ it does a grave disservice to prostitutes who at least deliver the end product.” Or words to that effect.

  3. Really hope leftist voters boycott this party that takes voters’ support for granted and treats its members like trash, taunting members to quit if they don’t like the party’s RW direction. Starmer’s only interested in appealing to Tory voters, that much is clear.

    Starmer the authoritarian, hawkish, WEF and Davos lovin’ liar; Reeves, a neoliberal, true believer in failed Osbornomic austerity, and its tight fiscal discipline. She’s a big fan of American-born Conservative politician, Nancy Astor. Astor has been criticised for her antisemitism and sympathetic view of Nazism. And finally Wes Streeting, the mealy-mouthed, smirking pipsqueak privatiser. The idea of this terrible trio being empowered with a huge, undeserved majority is a frightening prospect.

      1. I saw a small snippet of phillipson earlier on…honestly thought it was reeves so switched over simultaneously with the mandatory curse…

        I digress.

        Once again we see the resident turd polisher calling others tory boy when he has nothing else to offer.

        Yes, him…Who says anyone who voted brexit was/is enabling a Tory wet dream….

        And here’s philipson. A Sunderland MP.

        Sunderland…A city that returned one of the biggest leave results of all.

        Must all be tories there then, according to the mentally deficient oddball’s logic.

        Perhaps that’s why they returned philipson. A supposed labour MP.

        Who oddball obviously appears to have NO problem AT ALL with, despite going on TV to say the party should NOT be offering “structural change.”**.

        Yes, folks. There’s your credible alternative. according to the nonce-enabling hypocrite.

        ** I guess the phrase structural change will have some completely opaque & ambiguous connotation that can be adapted to suit the agenda of the centrists right.


      2. goldbach – Neither, I was referring to Andy and the others amongst you who are working so hard for a another Conservative win.

      3. SteveH

        Hardly, minded not to vote. Unless… Corbyn starts a new party?

        Since you ask : Sunak vs Starmer – I honestly don’t know which is worse.

        Starmer claims he prefers mixing with investment bankers at Davos to being at Westminster. Reeves seems to enjoy the compliments of ‘Mr Austerity’ George Osborne, and she thinks ‘workfare’ is the solutions to all Britain’s ills. And I don’t trust Starmer, Reeves and Streeting with the NHS, at all.

        On social policy,. Ultra authoritarian Labour want tougher drugs policies; tougher ASBOs; and they claim the Tories obnoxious ‘Online Safety Bill’ doesn’t go far enough, they say they want even more online censorship.

        On foreign policy they are literally in lockstep with the Tories.

      4. Andy – Good luck with that. Corbyn is still doing what he does best, prevaricating

      5. On foreign policy they are literally in lockstep with the Tories.

        It would appear that they’re (almost) fully in synch on domestic ones, too. 😕

      6. “Another ToryBoy exposes himself”

        So, anyone opposing Keir Starmer’s right-leaning economics, his militaristic, zionist policies or his autocratic anti-democracy party management is a Tory? George Orwell was right:
        War is peace.
        Freedom is slavery.
        Ignorance is strength.
        Keior Starmer’s a good leader of Labour.

      7. Projecting, like patriotism, is the final refuge of the scoundrel.

      8. Two Cheeks
        2nd Referendum and now Make Brexit work
        Your man really is the scum of the earth

      1. I don’t speak Russian and any translation is dependent on who does the translating and what impression they wish to make. I’d rely on the Kremlin translation or, failing that, Yves Smith’s. Mind you, it would be helpful if you could post a link to the translation of your ramblings.

      2. goldbach – Oh for goodness sake get a grip of yourself. If you’d bothered to follow the link that I posted before giving us the benefit of your wisdom then you would have seen that the video that I linked to was from RT.

      3. Toffee -It comes as no surprise that you lack the intellectual capacity to be able differentiate between the two.

      4. Indeed, but it is simultaneous translation.
        Here’s the actual translation of the transcript.
        No doubt you will read it just as you watched the full video.
        Let me know what you think when you’ve read it.
        I am only part way through but someone I know has read the whole transcript and I am confident, from what he says, that your assessment to date is, at least in his opinion, “bollocks”.

      5. goldbach – Why would I want to waste my time doing that when I’ve already watched the video but having said that thanks for the link I’ll save it for future reference. Should you notice any meaningful anomalies between RT’s simultaneous translation and the official release please keep us all informed.

      6. Oh, silly me! Tsk!

        That’s right…You’re the one spoon-feeding the rest of us with other people’s opinions in the form of OPINION polls – and trying desperately to pass them off as FACT.

        And that’s why you’re repeatedly repudiated and ridiculed.

        So who are YOU trying to convince, yourself?? 😏

    1. It’s brilliant. Worth watching but use CCs instead of voice over. The audience is enthralled and very knowledgeablewidely represented and patriotic, not nationalistic. I loved the Sovs and I love the Russians. There again I am a Scots/African of a certain vintage. No time for the Trots or the commissary. If you are anti-war and who isn’t then please concentrate on his domestic policies and attitudes to the poorer nations. No wonder that Mowgli, Dementia and Brokeback are all in checkmate. Cmon crabhunter general, whatcha gonna sanction on your road to victory. Baloo is going to give Mowgli a slap for giving Kaa fire.

  4. Expect many more front benches to express their support for Starmer who has betrayed every single pledge that fooled the ordinary party member into voting for him. In the last couple of days it has been made clear that New Labour Mark 2 has arrived and its birth is being made as easy as possible by the so called Left leading press with the Observer/Guardian leading the whitewashing of the Labour Leader.

    1. Their next campaign slogan: “Back to 1997 with the Continuity Conservatives.”

      1. My guess is that it will be “I’m not Jeremy Corbyn.”

      2. goldbach – Catch up, he’s already been there and done that.

      3. Wrong tense SH. He went there and remains there to this day.
        It’s a toss up whether this mantra is the most used or “I was once DPP.”

  5. Meanwhile the Beeb continues with the disinformation, saying the Russia has pulled out of START.
    Russia has, until now been fully compliant with START, allowing US inspection of facilities. Russia has now suspended participation (i.e. stopped the US from inspecting).
    What the Beeb fail to mention is that the US has not allowed Russian inspection of US facilities for some considerable time (i.e. the US suspended participation some time ago).
    The BBC renowned for its impartiality????????

  6. Neo-Labour – Managing expectations by having none?
    Another one of Starmer’s cunning plans – promise nothing so that you can claim a 100% success by delivering it.
    Seen this done by individuals who never make mistakes by doing no work but translating this to a national political strategy takes a special kind of genius.

  7. As an ex governor of a comprehensive school, I saw how the Tories and Blair’s Labour kept moving the goal posts each time we improved, in order to transfer them into Academies. They eventually succeeded only to find no change. It has since changed hands again with a new business taking over. It never was and still isn’t about education, but business interests, New Labour the new party of business.

    1. They hit their nadir during the latter years of Blair, when they were blaming local authorities (including Labour authorities) for not passing on the full budget allowance to schools and that was, supposedly, what was causing very many schools to have to cut staffing significantly. They maintained that they had funded the inflation costs and the costs of the extra dutines they had placed on schools. This was true. However, what they tried to cover up was that they had raised the employer’s superannuation and not funded it, and the LAs were indeed passing on all they were required to.
      Then again, maybe the nadir was PFI.

    2. @Rotzeichen

      It’s an illusion. They’re not the party of business. They’re not interested in small or even medium businesses. You could be very successful and still mean nothing to them.

      They are the party (parties?) of big business and more specifically, corporations. Which is both scary and ironic when you consider the definition of fascism espoused by Mussolini.

      Sheep spend their lives worrying about wolves and it’s the Shepherd who gets them in the end. There is absolutely no difference between labour or tories, they both exist to serve the status quo.

      There is no alternative. As we have often been told or mocked for. “Where will they go?”

  8. “My priority will be to deliver higher standards for all children in every state school…

    …But tough titty if their parents are struggling to feed them. “

    1. Nail on head there Toffee.

      1. Schools are not black boxes with no connection to or influence from the outside world. The highest standards ever devised are worth diddly squat when those attending are stressed to buggery from a range of issues arising from policy failures in other areas. Like food and fuel poverty; insufficient quality food; poor quality housing from decades of the same failed paradigm; overworked and overstressed parents etc.

      Its called joined up policy. And its a structural issue requiring the adoption of a model/paradigm which is systems based rather than reducing everything into individualised and atomised stand alone silos competing against each other with the right hand not giving a FF what the left hand is doing and how everything interconnects and impacts systemically across all other areas and sectors of the system.

      Producing outcomes which are less rather than more than the sum of the parts.

      Which Wurzal Gummage Starmer and his incompetent absolutist freaks have point blank refused to even consider in advance. Ensuring the continuation of the same policy failures as a result of committing everyone and the country to involuntary die in their ditch to maintain the unworkable and unsustainable status quo.

      2. What ‘State Schools’ is this half wit wittering on about?

      Just about everything not superglued to the bedrock of the planet has been shunted out of the systemically organised public sector into dis-organised Academies and similar.

      Stand alone individual or small conglomerate private sector owned and orientated atomised institutions fostering a private/competitive ethos designed intentionally to re-educate society’s replacement generations away from a public/co-operative ethos. Indoctrinating them to manage out over time the ability to consider any other model/paradigm not adhering to The Official Narrative.

      Not dissimilar from the kind of model laid out by the Estonian PM at Munich this week:

      3. And just what criteria will those ‘standards’ be based upon?

      I heard exactly the same word for word statement back in 1997 at a New Labour Government event on plans and policies for the Education and Training sector under Blunkett. A presentation long on short eight to ten word power point soundbites and well short on substance. Whose definitions of “standards” was based on a tick in a box production line model which treated kids as though they were tins of peas being processed through a factory.

      Its been the same ever since and given the available very public stances is set to remain so.

      The bottom line tragedy here, as with so much else, is that it represents no meaningful change from the present failure. Which is not simply a failure of policy but a failure of the assumptions and status quo model from which those policies flow.

      steveH in essence demands that those of us making this point literally itemise policy by policy where NU-Lab 2.0 do not differ in any significant way from the present tory government.

      The position of a committed Sophist, given that, having publicly committed to not, under any circumstances, base policy of any meaningful structural change in favour of following the narrow Overton Window of the present failed status quo model and its flawed assumptions, any policies presented by the Labour Party on such a basis will result in the same failures when and if enacted. Making them de facto indistinguishable from those of the status quo first eleven.

      It’s not bleedin’ quantum mechanics and it’s obvious to a blind man on a galloping horse. Just like with pork, it is not possible to get through to those like steveH who are indoctrinated into the cult.

    2. Toffee – Have you seen what happened to the latest attempt to pass a ‘School Meals Bill’ through parliament.

  9. So then, wee fella…

    We’ve been told that: “Structural change shouldn’t be a priority” for your labour party.

    And – as per – You’ve failed to address the issue. (Although you HAVE managed to own yerself once again)

    How about you forget everything else, and just get to the nub by telling us all “what’s TO like about that statement?


    1. This your answer is it?

      Toffee -It comes as no surprise that you lack the intellectual capacity to be able differentiate between the two.

      If that’s indeed the case, kindly demonstrate your supreme intellect for the benefit of poor me and the rest of us phillistines and tell us what’s to like about what’s essentially more of the same o genial one…

      Bet you can’t…

      1. It is certainly a unique kind of ‘intellect’ which bases its entire criteria on the simplistic notion of what nominal colour rosette is pinned to someone’s chest rather than asking the basic questions required to resolve any and all problem issues from time immemorial of what is required to get from A to B.

        For the benefit of the cognitively challenged and totally lacking in gorm steveH: the claim/argument is not that it is the Tories per se who have failed it is the policies they are pursuing, the assumptions upon which they are based, and the resulting model/paradigm which has failed.

        That the policies of the Labour Party in its present form and iteration are based on the same failed model and is assumptions. Ergo, the logical consequence is that regardless of whether its the first or second eleven gang taking up the administration of government/Government position failure will still remain the outcome and result simply because the necessary paradigm to deal with that failure has been totally rejected in favour of continuing the same fundamentally flawed assumptions and model by not only those running the Labour Party but also, very obviously yourself.

        The fact that you are clearly incapable of constructing a coherent argument to refute this basic point – relying on the intellectually backwards position of ‘something is so because I, steveH, says it is so’ – demonstrates that you are well out of your depth here. A living example of the total failure of the Care in the Community policy.

  10. Phillipson.
    How surprising (not) to see yet another Nu-Labour hopeful bought and paid for by Trevor Chinn’s riches.
    Following in her master’s footsteps …
    Not to mention Twatson and numerous other traitors.
    No wonder that the anti-Semitism scam was so well supported by the Labour right-wingers.
    Always follow the bribes / money

    1. Au contrere wee div. Yet again, your idiocy needs spelling out for you; as you’re obvs incapable to see what you’re doing to yourself, but I’m willing to oblige.

      You see, YOU pulled someone on being spoon fed others’ opinions and then TREBLED down on your imbecility.

      And yet you, yes YOU, who cannot go more than a dozen posts without posting links to OPINION polls (That’s polling where people offer their OPINION) and present them as fact…Or pretty soon to be fact; have the temerity to take a poke at others for EXACTLY the thing you are guiltiest of.

      Yes, YOU someone who probably regards zawahi and his yougov as some sort of prophets…

      Now then, it was only in the last week or so that you were schooled by yours truly on OPINION polling, when you claimed the opinion polls show that peoplereally like keef, and that they show that he would have a large majority at the next election.

      Until the ACTUAL by-election in West Lancs demonstrated irrefutably that if that result was to be replicated, keef would only have a majority of a single seat.

      …And that’s only if Corbyn decides not to run as an independent.

      But we know the real reason you have TREBLED down on your imbecility (without realising how idiotic you truly are)

      And that’s to deflect from the question you were asked about philipson and labour and the stated reluctance to bring about structural change

      So answer it. You’re the one telling us were all tory enablers, but your so-called labour party have shown they’ll do nothing tangible to bring about any meaningful, radical change to the system.

      So…Who are the REAL toerag enablers? What’s TO like about the potential next labour government under a regime that won’t bring about said change(s)?

      You won’t answer. You CAN’T answer; at least not without proving that once again you’re full of more bullshit than the UK’s slurry pits, combined.

      You really are very, VERY stupid.

      1. Toffee – Your failure to appreciate the difference between an opinion poll and the opinions of a single partisan commentator is your problem.

        As for what’s to like about the Labour Party. Well I’d have thought that was obvious, it’s Labour’s current policy platform. I’ve challenged you (and others) many times on these pages to prove their hysterical assertions about Labour’s so called Tory policies by detailing which of Labour’s current policies are Tory policies. To date the silence has been deafening. I wonder why🤔

        please feel free to write me yet another long rant😏

  11. Well thanks for proving me right and proving you’ve got NOTHING.

    Oh! But I’m a toerag enabler if I refuse to vote smarmer.

    But by voting smarmerite labour and getting NO CHANGE, allowing the corporates to continue to plunder public resources & assets while clamping down drastically on any and all public dissent and dissatisfaction and maintaining the persecution of those unable to work is quite acceptable.

    We don’t NEED to prove our hysterical assertions, imbecile.

    Wasnt is freely confessed that smarmerite labour are unwilling to bring about structural change and all that you could reasonably assume that to entail (although most definitely NOT under the ambiguous slimeball smarmer – “nowhere does that say renationalisation”)

    Your own shadow cabinet member has done that for you.


      1. Wassamarra wee helmet? Has the penny dropped? No quick-witted retort, signed off with the obligatory emoji?

        As I’ve said…You’ve got nothing

        Now be gone. I’ve some kip to catch up on.

  12. *Ten pledges reneged on

    *More public statements of support for the toerags (and their policies) than opposition

    *More abstentions than opposition – including, but not exclusive to, allowing schoolchildren to go hungry

    *Make brexit work

    *As many seats lost to the rags as the libtards have gained from them

    *Only managing to retain the seats they have with vastly reduced majorities

    *Continued haemorrhaging of membership

    Oh he’s doing a great job, is keef. It’s just that anyone who doesn’t vote for the ersatz tory supporting tory, is themselves, a tory.


    1. Just saw Headroom on the a.m news ( my missus watches it) He’s got a five point list for when he is at no10. At least he will betray us by 50%less this time. Progress?

  13. Toffee – Oh for goodness sake grow up, your lack of intellectual curiosity and gullibility are a wonder to behold. Aren’t you in the least bit curious why the quote is so short with no context.

    1. Gullibility. *Facepalms*

      Who voted keef as best of a bad bunch? (and now does nothing but denigrate Corbyn’s opposition to the rags while excusing at every turn, keefs’ craven continued concurrence with toerag policy)

      And who continues to defend him that says “Make brexit work”?

      And who defends keefs’ point-blank refusal to show any sort of support for those workers who are striving to so much as keep their pay in line with inflation , as well as not surrender their hard-earned rights; but instead perpetually referring to some magical green paper, as if it will look anything like it does now, given keefs’ previous form for peddling a load of bullshit (that that same gullible moron buys into, time & again) ??

      And who’s the whopper repeatedly asking: “what’s not to like?” while refusing to answer what he himself likes about the party’s apparent refusal to bring about “structural change” that is desperately required in both politics and society as a whole?

      And who had to have it pointed out to him that keef had gone public in reneging on each and every one of those ten pledges?

      Because on every occasion – it weren’t me.

      “Gullibility” Oh! My aching sides!! All that laughing has given me a hernia. 😒

  14. SteveH is correct. I didn’t bother listening to/watching the YouTube link that he posted. This was because I am accustomed to everything he posts being a diversion ot twaddle. This one was neither, so my apologies.
    It is clear from listening to it, and from having read what is, so far, available as a translation on the Kremlin website, that the video did not have simultaneous translation but was being read from a script that had already been translated for the “translator”.
    Given that this is the case, I must assume that SteveH did not watch/listen to the speech either, otherwise he would not have concluded that it was “rambling”.

    The speech is mostly about the economy and socio-economic matters and goes into detail in analysing the current situation (which looks pretty good economically), how this came about and plans for the future. These plans, and how they are to be achieved, are outlined in detail.
    The first, rather brief, section was about the conflict with the West (he never singled out any specific country, though it is easy to see that the US was implicitly the focal point) that is being played out in Ukraine. He talked about the military, information and economic conflict that had been brought about, and how Russia had dealt with it in each area.

    It was a long speech but was full of detail, free from the histrionics and sound bites that we hear from Biden and his entourage. It would be really refreshing if a PM or LoHMLO in the UK made such a detailed speech about economic/social plans.
    He did touch on the START treaty. Russia was suspending participation because the US wasn’t keeping its part of the bargain – the US hadn’t allowed Russian observers to visit US sites for more than a year so Russia was going to do the same. [The good old BBC reported this as “Putin pulls out of nuclear treaty” and has now changed the headline to “Putin promotes escalation in annual speech.”]

    I am not asking anyone to read the full transcript. Most of you won’t have the time and SteveH won’t do so in any case. Maybe he just knows in his waters that he is right no matter what.

      1. Thank you for the link. I recall Larry Johnson but haven’t read anything by him for ages.

      2. Thanks for the link. Parts of the libertarian right is shaming most of the democratic left. Ukraine, Covid and the systemic corruption of the UK and US political systems (with their designed-in 2 party mechanisms): why are they saying the important things the that we should but don’t? Have we forgotten the dialectic materialism that should be our USP? They haven’t.

    1. Thanks Goldbach. I’ll try to catch up with what was said over the weekend via Karlof1.

      I cannot agree more about how refreshing it would be to hear a leader or potential leader speak in such detail, in a non condescending manner.

      They won’t though, because we’ve got nothing.

      1. I’ve just heard that Seymour Hersh, after his revelations about the involvement of Norway in the Nordstream sabotage, is now reporting that Norway played a role in the Gulf of Tonkin Incident [for younger readers, it was a dodgy pretext for the escalation of the Vietnam war.]
        I’ve found an intro to it on his website. You have to do a “read for free for seven days” to get to the article.

      2. On that note here’s Andrei Martyanov……

        …..” there ARE NO people in all of the US military-political establishment today who can really understand not only Russia, but the world outside the Beltway.

        Moreover, they, as I am on record, top-bottom, cannot do strategy, because they lack in fundamentals.

        Read my lips–US “machine” of elites’ manufacturing is utterly broken, because the way those “elites” are educated is a complete utter academic fraud based on, at best, shaky assumptions, at worst–on a radical rewriting of history. It is the house of cards and we see it in the process of collapse upon encounter with reality and the winds of history.”

        The only quibble being that the fundamentals of this astute observation are not limited to the US but provide a succinct assessment of not only elites across the minority of this planets populace known as the collective West but also its system which anyone with a functioning brain cell can see has reached a point of degeneracy at which it is no longer valid.

    2. Firstly, an observation.

      Limiting consideration to this weeks Address to the Russian Federal Assembly alone (and I’m not suggesting anyone is doing so, apart from probably steveH as its above his pay grade/cognitive ability) would represent the kind of disintegrated, unsystemic, sticking everything in an atomised silo which is a central feature of the non-viable approach previously argued. An issue not limited to the Labour Party in Zone A.

      Secondly, just to focus on some of the key content of that Address, it is not necessary to require, to take one example among many now available, a third party such as one David Sant writing yesterday on the Saker Blog (The Dire Significance of Putin’s Feb 21 Speech) to recognise a point relating to behaviour and approach which was obvious back in December 2021 – at least to anyone with a working brain cell.

      The point, as laid out by Sant being:

      “Just as in December 2021 when Russia asked NATO for security guarantees, Russia follows the letter of the law and procedure. They gave NATO the opportunity to back down or negotiate. When they were rebuffed, Russia intervened militarily in Ukraine, about 70 days after the initial demand for negotiation with NATO.

      Following the same method, in 2023, Russia has just made the legal case that the USA and NATO are at war with Russia and pose an existential threat to Russia’s existence.”

      The point being, and whether those such as steveH (among others) want to to recognise of accept or not the fact based evidence provided by actual rather than virtual reality is irrelevant; that following a series of events culminating in the false start of hostilities which was attempted in April 2021 – and which also included the expansion of NATO and its missiles right up to the border of the Russian Federation and the training of Nazi dominated forces (which would not have put up with to the same measured extent if it had been in reverse, with a Warsaw Pact type entity camped in the Gulf of Mexico) – the Russian Federation offered a win-win mutual security pact in December 2021 which was met with scorn and derision by the incompetent absolutist freak elites of the West.

      Which is why two thirds of the planet have given the collective finger to Zone A over the Ukraine issue.

      And what is clear from this Address is that the same consistently applied process is being carried out once again. Providing an opportunity for the crazy’s from the basement to come to their senses.

      However, going back to the very first point, that Address represents only one of two instances in which the above identified process has been adopted and laid out this week. The second of which has been largely missed in Zone A.

      Because, as Gonzalo Lira, writing, again, on The Saker, points out; this official Chinese government document…..

      is doing exactly the same. Firstly, as the other Address to the Russian Federal Assembly did this week, setting out the case against the collective West/Zone A;

      “Since becoming the world’s most powerful country after the two world wars and the Cold War, the United States has acted more boldly to interfere in the internal affairs of other countries, pursue, maintain and abuse hegemony, advance subversion and infiltration, and willfully wage wars, bringing harm to the international community.

      The United States has developed a hegemonic playbook to stage “color revolutions,” instigate regional disputes, and even directly launch wars under the guise of promoting democracy, freedom and human rights. Clinging to the Cold War mentality, the United States has ramped up bloc politics and stoked conflict and confrontation. It has overstretched the concept of national security, abused export controls and forced unilateral sanctions upon others. It has taken a selective approach to international law and rules, utilizing or discarding them as it sees fit, and has sought to impose rules that serve its own interests in the name of upholding a “rules-based international order.”

      This report, by presenting the relevant facts, seeks to expose the U.S. abuse of hegemony in the political, military, economic, financial, technological and cultural fields, and to draw greater international attention to the perils of the U.S. practices to world peace and stability and the well-being of all peoples.”

      And secondly, as with the both the Russian Federation security proposal of December 2021 and this weeks Address to the Russian Federal Assembly, laying out in very clear terms an opportunity for the crazy’s running the West to come to their collective senses:

      “While a just cause wins its champion wide support, an unjust one condemns its pursuer to be an outcast. The hegemonic, domineering, and bullying practices of using strength to intimidate the weak, taking from others by force and subterfuge, and playing zero-sum games are exerting grave harm. The historical trends of peace, development, cooperation, and mutual benefit are unstoppable. The United States has been overriding truth with its power and trampling justice to serve self-interest. These unilateral, egoistic and regressive hegemonic practices have drawn growing, intense criticism and opposition from the international community.

      Countries need to respect each other and treat each other as equals. Big countries should behave in a manner befitting their status and take the lead in pursuing a new model of state-to-state relations featuring dialogue and partnership, not confrontation or alliance. China opposes all forms of hegemonism and power politics, and rejects interference in other countries’ internal affairs. The United States must conduct serious soul-searching. It must critically examine what it has done, let go of its arrogance and prejudice, and quit its hegemonic, domineering and bullying practices.”

      Lira’s summary at the end of his almost 11 minute video – available both on Youtube and the Saker site – is worth the effort;

      “The bottom line is that the rest of the World views the United States as a crazy outcast and can’t wait to get rid of it.”

      Like it or not the stark reality is that this is where we are now. Another iteration of the position in December 2021 but this time, as Larry Johnson points out on the Sonar site, with both the Russian Federation and China not only very likely to be signing a mutual defence pact when Xi visits Russia in March (its now February 23rd) but also lining up with the same hymn sheet. Both setting out similar cases and giving the crazy’s running Zone A the opportunity to either act like grown up’s on their own accord (internally) or be made to (externally).

      In that regard, the earlier Saker article from David Sant is worth perusing for those sections which, following not dissimilar previous analysis from Andrei Martyanov, detail the sobering capability gap which exists in air defence and offensive capabilities between Eurasia and the collective West.

      One thing is for sure; whether the shite hits the fan this time around or not, anyone claiming they did not or will not understand this Janet and John position will most definitely deserve their Darwin Award.

  15. RE Skwawkboc’s exclusive scoop on equality practice and policy in the TSSA, and thinking about Labour’s apparent large scale enterism by neoliberal, billionaire-supporting centrists, (both in ’94 by a CIA-backed pro-Trilateral Commission Blair and again, more recently) I suspect middle and senior (particularly unelected) management often served as foot soldiers/enemy agents for the right-wing in the Labour Movemenmt.

    In the TSSA case, it’d be valuable to learn what – if anything – the elected Executive members have to say on the holding back of the Kennedy and Conley Reports – and whether any investigatory actions will ensue within the Union..

    1. Qwertboi, I read an interesting post on an American based forum earlier today. The poster argued that it was the British people who were the biggest danger to corporate rule. They went on to explain that the US spends a lot of money steering UK politics (Smeeth for example) in the direction the US wants.

      They’re terrified of socialism. Not of unlimited benefits, that’s the scare stories. No, they fear losing medical markets and other sensible controls keeping capitalism in check.

      Kissenger said that to be an enemy of the US is dangerous, to be an ally is deadly.

      (You’ll note the efforts of labour, of the years since Blair that they’ve tried to destroy anything based on socialised help.)

    1. Voting Intention
      Con 28% (-)
      Lab 50% (+2)
      Lib Dem 9% (+1)
      Other 12% (-4)

      Leadership Approval Index
      Rishi Sunak -19%
      Keir Starmer +19%

      Economic Competence
      Con – 30%
      Lab – 49%

      1. and here are the latest Red Wall voting intentions

        Our latest Red Wall poll finds Labour leading the Conservatives by 28%, five points more than in our previous poll conducted on 5 February, and the largest lead for Labour in these seats since Rishi Sunak became Prime Minister. Altogether, the results of our poll (with changes from 5 February) are as follows:
        Labour 55% (+3)
        Conservative 27% (-2)
        Reform UK 10% (+2)
        Liberal Democrat 4% (-1)
        Green 3% (-1)
        Plaid Cymru 1% (–)
        Other 1% (–)

        Please take a look at this extensive poll.

  16. Toffee – Why do you get so worked up about a few polling results that you would have us believe are irrelevant, what do you hope to achieve by posting silly links and playground expletives?😕
    How’s your list of Tory policies coming along? The ones that you claim are part of Labour’s current policy platform.🤔

    1. Oh, and WHO said your polls were irrelevant?

      I didn’t.

      You’re the gobshite continuing to spoon feed others OPINIONS on people.

      Something you bemoan about others while doing so ad nauseam, ad infinitum, yourself.


      1. Toffee – Given that you are always dismissing and complaining about the opinion polls it was by no means unreasonable to conclude that.
        However I am heartened to see that you have acknowledged the relevance of opinion polls.😉

      2. “The intelligence of the creature known as a crowd, is the square root of the number of people in it.”
        – Terry Pratchett

      3. Dave – Is that in your opinion why despite Jeremy’s huge crowds of supporters the chants didn’t translate into votes.

      4. Given we are operating within your context and on your definitions – the numbers from your poll based argument being drawn from far smaller samples – it would be oxymoronic to reach such a conclusion.

        You really must make a better effort to wrap your head around systems thinking rather then the dead end cul de sac reductionism you are desperately clinging to.

        However, your puppy dog like eagerness to prove the oft made point of Andrei Martyanov is noted.

      5. Dave – Oh for goodness sake get over yourself. Who are you so desperately tying to impress, yourself?

      6. So that’s yet another in a long line of now predictable big fat zero ‘I’ve got no answers other than this standard issue bluster’ responses.

        Even an A.I.machine avatar could do better than this – and it would be both more cost effective and useful, as well as being less gormless.

      7. SH Vs DH


        SteveH to serve

        New balls please

  17. How’s your list of Tory policies coming along? The ones that you claim are part of Labour’s current policy platform.

    Hmm….lets see now.

    **Any plans to return any part of the NHS back to in-house?

    Nope. Same as the toerags.

    **Or renationalise rail, mail, and the utilities?

    You avin a larf, mate?

    What about any sort of protection of the unemployed & sick from WCA’s and work for your dole?

    Not a fackin chance, squire.

    Any sort of structural reform whatsoever?

    Well philipsons been asked that -as is the entire point of the thread.

    The answer?

    Now, either tell us what’s NOT toerag about the things I mentioned or shut your fucking idiotic cave up for complete and total fucks sake.

    1. FCATFS….

      It’s keefs’ five missions later today.

      And he’s right now on the beeb…“We will protect the institutions by getting in MORE private investment”.


      But he’s NOT a toerag, is he?

      And asked why he should be believed when he ditched his ten pledges he spouted a load of complete bollocks and didn’t refer to them whatsoever.

      five missions ffs.

      These are the (again, soon to be ditched) pledges of the smarmship (private) enterprise, its five missions to explore further right wing ideology, to seek out strange new ways of shafting the left, to boldly go further than any tory has ever been before

  18. Toffee – Or to put it more succinctly, you can’t find any policies within Labour’s current platform that are Tory.
    Do you actually have any idea what was being discussed in the above video clip?

    1. Wrong again.

      There aren’t any that are NOT toerag.

      So bring out your green paper again and ask what’s not to like like the gormless gobshite you are.

      “Structural change should not be a priority for a labour government means more of the bastard same.

      WTF is your major malfunction, numbnut

      1. Toffee – Do you actually have any idea what was being discussed in the above video clip?

      2. It doesn’t bleedin matter what was being discussed on the clip.

        It DOES NOTin ANY WAY change the fact that smarmerite labour do NOT consider structural change – and ALL it’s connotations – as a priority.

        So WHAT is the priority?

        Because to any NORMAL person, it’s as plain as bleedin day that the order of their day is MORE OF THE SAME.

        That’s the last time I’m gonna explain it to you, idiot.

      3. Toffee – Your above comment is just silly nonsense, of course it matters what subject was being discussed.

  19. SteveH 11.45pm “Or to put it more succinctly, you can’t find any policies within Labour’s current platform that are Tory.

    Oh, for heaven’s sake despite being so attentive to these pages for opportunities to present Sir Keior’s polling numbers, you’re not engaging your brain (and responding properly to us).

    Dave Hansell (for one) tried to spell it out for you above: whether the detail of a particular Keior policy is recognisably tory or not, it is the objectives they serve which benefit the oligarchs, billionaires, status-quo and Establishment.

    As the wiki link I lifted above says (about TLC, of which Keior is a member):

    “The organization represents influential commercial and political interests that share a commitment to private enterprise and trade, multilateralism, and global governance; this has subjected it to criticism for elitism.”

    Worse than Tory in exactly the same way that Biden is worse than Trump!

    1. I.E. – centrists are more dangerous to the working class and any democracy that is capable of serving them that abject, dye-in-the-wool Tories!!!!!!!!

      Got that?

    2. What you are encountering here qwertboi is one of two phenomena:

      1. An innate inability to do joined up thinking borne of the terminally gormless.

      2. A conscious choice not to do joined up thinking borne of an externally provided incentive – Upton Sinclair’s well known quote applies.

      Last time I looked on a map Hermitage was in Berkshire, not the Caribbean (allegedly).

  20. Re: Akehurst admits working to ‘get rid of Corbyn’ as party leader
    I naw await “Pope admits to being a Catholic” and “Bears admit to ………..”

    1. Indeed! It proves, to my mind, that the neoliberal-enterist-Right in Labour are aggressive and duplicitous. The ‘broad church’ philosophy they pretended to endorse will not survive Keior Starmer and the actions of people like Akehurst. They were feigning agreement with the principle ONLY to dupe the democratic left (who they know to be issue-focussed nice people that wouldn’t realise what aggressive bastards the billionares-backing centrists really are). They duped the democratic left exactly the same way on the long-planned covid emergency scam.

      Anyway, it tells me that they think the democratic left will NEVER return to Labour, which is probably true. If we have the courage of our convictions, a ‘new party’ will result from this. And no, steveh, it doesn’t mean we have to create one and fake a mature party with policies and a constitution in time for the next Gen Election; it means the opposite. Learn your Labour history and realise that even a faintly-organised working class has more power and more influence than all the bullion in fort knox and all the Kapital in the Trilateral Commission/WEF.

      1. qwertboi – “If we have the courage of our convictions, a ‘new party’ will result from this.”
        How’s that going?

        “And no, steveh, it doesn’t mean we have to create one and fake a mature party with policies and a constitution in time for the next Gen Election; it means the opposite.
        Perhaps you could clarify what you mean, have the fairies at the bottom of the garden granted you a wish?

      2. the bottom of the garden granted you a wish?

        Yes, Sefer Ha-Aggadah. Keir Hardie didn’t found Labour. Keior Starmer did butcher it. I’m just saying that its replacement will probably not be what the likes of you and John McTernan are expecting.

  21. I see that the latest Beeb headline is “Zelensky mourns ‘all the killings’ ahead of war anniversary”.
    That’s strange, given that the people responsible for the burning to death of almost 50 people in Odessa in 2014 have never been brought to justice, despite the fact there are reports that many of them have been identified and their names given to Ukrainian officials.


      Christ on a stick!!

      Who next? Chaddersley Corbett train spotters supporting RMT/ASLEF?

      Spalding lollipop ladies against the academies merger?

      Tiverton morris dancers appreciation society after posting a performance to the pistols’ version of “God save the Queen” on tiktok??

      …Bit there is ONE (affiliation) I’d piss meself laughing to see binned off by keef.

      The Centrist goat *farmer’s* smarmer adoration club (Caribbean branch).

      1. Given the continuing fixation within these very same circles for introducing identity cards to the populace – Blair, along with former Tory leader William Hague are, according to recent reports, attempting to resurrect this proposal last seen under New Labour before the 2010 election – interesting and realistic possibilities for the terminally power crazed suggest themselves.

        The precedent of which was already set by the Canadian Government last year when they froze the bank accounts of those considered ‘deplorables’ for the heinous crime of donating various amounts of money to crowdfunding sites to support and fund the Truckers protest. A logical extension of similar actions by these elite sociopaths at international level in stealing the assets of entire countries who don’t cry ‘uncle.’ From Iran and Venezuela to Russia.

        Because the one guarantee with this personality type is that they don’t know when to stop. Their self defined exceptionalism and superiority complex contains no boundaries. It is not that big a step in such mindsets from targeting members for wrong think to targeting members of society for the same purpose should such power be bestowed.

        After all, the Canadians did it.

      2. Addendum: The most recent piece up on this site about Labour Party Units being barred from affiliation to specific organisations appears to at least hint that the justification for this is based on Party Rules.

        Assuming this to be the case the question arises as to why those rules are being selectively applied. Not in terms of what groups are proscribed or not proscribed but in terms of which entities those rules apply to. The point being why are the rules apparently applicable only to Party Units and not members?

        Why the apparent differentiation?

        If the rules don’t allow Party Units to be associated with these organisations then the same principle should apply to members if those who have made this decision are being consistent in the application of the rules.

        Meanwhile, in another Party on a planet not so far away……

        ……it would appear the concept of ‘proscribed group’ is about to be extended to the campaign of any candidate other than the one wanted by those who have taken control of the the rules and constitution.

        The question remains, however, as to who in their right minds would want to risk putting any of these crazy’s in power. Whatever nominal colour rosette they have pinned to their chest.

      3. The rule change that enabled this was passed at Labour’s 2021 Conference

        Card vote six: “party meetings”. (See CAC Report 1.) These changes:
        ▪ introduce a “political education and training officer” role to local parties;
        ▪ transfer the power to set a local party meeting quorum from the regional board to the regional office on the NEC’s behalf;
        ▪ mean local parties cannot affiliate with any group without the prior permission of the NEC.

        Actual votes cast:
        CLP, for: 209,984 (59.69%)
        CLP, against: 141,823 (40.31%)
        Affiliate, for: 1,092,761 (59.21%)
        Affiliate, against: 752,820 (40.79%)
        Overall percentage (CLP and affiliates each amounting to 50%):
        CLP, for: 29.84%
        CLP, against: 20.16%
        Affiliate, for: 29.6%
        Affiliate, against: 20.4%
        Total, for: 59.45%
        Total, against: 40.55%

      4. And just how, Einstein, does this negate the provisions set out in Chapter 2, Clause 1.5B.v?:

        “v. Possessing membership of, providing financial assistance to, sitting on the ruling body of or otherwise supporting (as may be defined by the NEC) any political organisation that the NEC in its absolute discretion shall declare to be inimical with the aims and values of the Party.”

        To emphasis for the very obviously cognitively challenged hard of thinking:

        “otherwise supporting (as may be defined by the NEC) any political organisation that the NEC in its absolute discretion shall declare to be inimical with the aims and values of the Party.”

        Which under Chapter 2, Clause 1 5.A.:

        “A. A member who commits a Prohibited Act in Chapter 2, Clause I.5.B ceases to be eligible for membership of the Party and his or her membership shall terminate in the circumstances set out in Chapter 2, Clause I.5.C”

        Is this another one of those legendary and mythical Chinese Walls we here so much about and which animates those in management circles?

        I’ll Janet and John it for you Albert.


        What would be the reason for the NEC to bar Party Units from affiliating from these organisations?

        A. Personal animosity?
        B. Arbitrary exercise of power?
        C. Inimical with the aims and values of the Party?

        And why would it not apply to members?

        Take your time. No rush. Everyone here understands this is advanced level thinking for you steveH

      5. Dave – I doubt that most people will have much difficulty in understanding that these are two separate procedures. As I understand it these organisations would need to be proscribed for it to threaten the membership status of individual Labour members. As to why the NEC has taken this action to stop CLPs from affiliated with these groups, like you, I don’t know. Maybe we’ll find out from the next monthly NEC report. I’m a little surprised and disappointed that to date we haven’t heard anything about this from the left’s elected CLP reps on the NEC.

        ps:- Your very obvious attempts at condescension need a little more work.

      6. Its not quantum mechanics.

        Chapter 1, Clause 2.5 of the National Rules:

        “5.Other organisations: A .Political organisations not affiliated or associated under a national agreement with the Party, having their own programme, principles and policy, or distinctive and separate propaganda, or possessing branches in the constituencies, or engaged in the promotion of parliamentary or local government candidates, or having allegiance to any political organisation situated abroad, shall be ineligible for affiliation to the Party.”

        Makes it clear that “having their own programme, principles and policy, or distinctive and separate propaganda,” is by definition ‘inimical with the aims and values of the Party” on the basis that no one can serve two masters.

        This being the case Party Rule Chapter 2, Clause 1. 5.B.v comes into play for any individual member having affiliation to or association with the listed groups/organisations. People I know have been expelled for far less.

        You have had two opportunities to make a coherent, rational and evidenced based case that challenges that logic. So far you have failed spectacularly. You have not even presented any evidence to substantiate your case never mind construct a coherent and rational argument.

        Is there a tube of gorm shortage where you are?

  22. Keep an eye on Moldova. Recent protests against the economic incompetence of the government led the president to dismiss the PM and his govt. They were neoliberals with a penchant for privatisation, austerity etc. Trouble was that the replacements were a PM and government that is more extreme, in fact they are more like the neocons – neoliberals with added belligerence. The protests continue, and now the PM is talking about attacking Transnistria.

    1. “they are more like the neocons – neoliberals with added belligerence…”

      Sounds a bit like Sir Keior, ‘cept his belligerence is better described as ‘Attitude’ – a neoliberal with attitude! He had it when he was DPP, as Jimmy Saville and Julian Assange would testify (if they could).

  23. Heads I Win, Tails I win; Labour and Conservative both cheeks on the same butt………so where is the choice in the next General Election? GB has become more and more like USA and Israel; a one Party State only selling Patriotism.

    1. @Steve101704

      Not just those. Every “Western” country is exactly the same. The narrative may differ, but the choices do not

      1. steve – “a one Party State only selling Patriotism.”

        Isn’t that what literally exists in both Russia and China.

  24. Now the “entertainment industry” joins in with the opinion forming, or should I say opinion misinforming.
    Thanks to John Helmer for publishing this article by Lucy Komisar, a long-time investigative journalist.
    “Lucy Komisar is an investigative journalist who won a Gerald Loeb award of the UCLA Anderson School of Management, the major prize in financial journalism, for an article published by the Miami Herald which told how the head of the Florida Banking Department allowed Ponzi fraudster Allen Stanford to move money offshore with no regulation.”

  25. Dave Hansell – It looks like I was wrong in my assumption that a ban on affiliation wouldn’t affect individual Labour members. It would have however helped if instead of coming at it so obliquely you’d dug a little deeper and found the relevant rule which appears to be unequivocal.

    It looks like more than a few are going to have to decide where their primary loyalties reside.

    Labour Party Rule Book 2022 – page 14 (2.1.3C)
    Chapter 2 – Membership Rules
    Clause 1 – Condition of Membership
    3. 3. Individual members shall be subjects/residents of The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland or citizens of The Republic of Ireland or other persons resident in The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland for more than one year who:
    A. are not less than14 years of age, and
    B. subscribe to the conditions of membership in this clause, and
    C. are not members of political parties or organisations ancillary or subsidiary thereto declared by Party conference or by the NEC in pursuance of Party conference decisions to be ineligible for affiliation to the Party..

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: