Analysis comment

US news and politics service lists Reeves as Tory MP

US media more perceptive and honest than UK?

Labour Shadow Chancellor Rachel Reeves has frequently been slammed for her right-wing, heartless positions – including:

and more.

C-SPAN is a public US broadcaster covering news, politics and current affairs since 1979. The channel maintains a profile page and video index for overseas politicians – and its page for Reeves lists her as a Conservative party MP:

While Reeves has been given a free pass and a series of puff pieces by UK media, it seems at least one US broadcaster is more perceptive and honest than its UK counterparts.

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. After reading this article is there anybody who still believes that Starmers Labour really want to win the next election? It is clear to me that they don’t. Their sole remit is to purge the party of antiZionists, socialists and independent thinkers.Once they have achieved this they might be “allowed” to win an election in about 10 years time

    1. No, he wants to win so that he can do things that the Conservatives would not dare do and then hand it back to them later on.

    2. Well, the LP is still some 18 points ahead in the polls on average, so the things mentioned in the above article don’t appear to be having any negative effect. And as long as they’re doing the bidding of the Establishment, it doesn’t really matter whether it’s the Red or the Blue Tories in Government as far as they – the Establishment – are concerned.


      And here’s a link to some questions I posed to Goldbach in a previous thread. Would be grateful if you would answer them Goldbach. Thanks

      1. Sorry, Allan, I completely missed your comment that this links to. Just read it now.
        “And what would this ‘swinging’ have consisted of precisely? And when do you think it should have started, and in relation to what exactly?”
        Re: “swinging” – I was referring to my view that Mr Corbyn, because he works in the way he does, was very quickly at the mercy of the agenda set by the BBC rather than directly challenging the narrative of AS that they were driving. You can have no influence on what is written in the press, but on TV and radio you can at least have a shot.
        Re: When it should have started – As soon as it became clear that that was the agenda (i.e. the first time he got a “question” which was driving that narrative).
        Re: In relation to what – see above.
        I’m not having a go at Mr Corbyn. I was saying that his style was not suited to dealing with what was thrown at him. A more combative personality might have been able to challenge the narreative.

      2. And what about Andy lying through his teeth so as to paint Jeremy in a negative light to readers of skwawkbox?

        Anyway, I have little doubt that you’ve seen it before, given that I’ve posted it on here several times in the past year or so – as I’m sure other people who are always quick to join in this particular false and phony criticism of Jeremy have – and that’s the DM article from April 2016 when Jeremy refuted and denied that the LP had an antisemitism crisis. So let’s just make this perfectly clear to everyone….. Jeremy did EXACTLY as Goldbach says he should have done and, as such, dismissed the claim that the party had an A/S crisis, right, but just look what happened (and needless to say it wasn’t just the Mail, but the whole of the MSM that ran with falsehoods):

        ‘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 ‘before he went mad and ended up killing six million Jews”

        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.

        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.’

        So just to summarise:

        Someone just happened to dig out a sarcastically amusing post that Naz Shah posted in 2014, and supposedly did so purely coincidentally just ten days or so before the local elections (in May 2016), the first that Jeremy was contesting as leader, and the whole of the MSM fraudulently covered it as if it was a serious suggestion that the entire population of Israel should be moved to the US. Then, a day or two later, Ken is invited to give his opinion about the Naz Shah episode on the Vanessa Feltz programme, and is later on verbally attacked by John Mann just as he arrives at the studios to appear on the Daily Politics programme which, needless to say, was all a set-up. And the reason it was all planned like that is because obviously it would make good TV coverage in news bulletins and in video clips on newspaper websites.

        Yes, the conspirators couldn’t have known in advance that Ken would say what he said about Hitler, but I have no doubt whatsoever that the initial plan was for John Mann to verbally attack Ken for defending Naz Shah (just as he was arriving at the studios to appear on the Daily Politics). But you can be 1,000% certain that the saboteurs were all listening to the VF programme to see what Ken said, and then ‘transform’ it to be as damaging as possible to Jeremy Corbyn. I of course don’t know which of the conspirators came up with the falsehood that Ken said Hitler was a Zionist, and all I do know is that the fist time it entered into the public domain is when John Mann came out with it on the Daily Politics programme and said it to Ken’s face. And needless to say, Andrew Neil (and Jo Coburn) knew of course that Ken had said no such thing and that it was a malicious falsehood, but he didn’t challenge Mann about it because HE is totally corrupt and malicious and malevolent, just like Mann. I could elaborate some more, but I’ll leave it there, except to say that the Mail repeats the falsehood THREE times in the article I quoted from, and countless so-called journalists have repeated the falsehood on literally hundreds of occasions since April 2016..

        Anyway, I don’t know why you singled out the BBC, but in terms of Jeremy challenging the BBC, one word should suffice: Panorama!

        And needless to say, this is just ONE example of what happened when Jeremy challenged the A/S narrative, and very early on in what was to become a sustained attack on Jeremy and his supporters. So it’s complete bollocks to come out with the line about Jeremy ‘working in the way he does’, when it’s blatantly obvious to any honest observer that he was in a No-Win situation, and he was in a no-win situation precisely because the MSM has absolute and total control of the narrative, and it goes without saying that their agenda was to demonise Jeremy and his supporters and destroy him and, as such, subvert democracy.

        And the (sick) joke of it with Andy is that on the one hand he regularly (falsely) criticises Jeremy for not fighting back, or not defending Chris Williamson (which is yet ANOTHER falsehood, because Jeremy DID defend Chris) etc, etc, and on the other hand he calls for Jeremy to establish a new party! Now why would Andy do that if he thinks so badly of Jeremy (and feels the need to keep mentioning and repeating what he thinks twenty or more times a year)! And wouldn’t it all be a complete waste of time if Jeremy and his new party was attacked and smeared, as he/it inevitably would be, and – as Andy and Goldbach and one or two others supposedly see it – that yet again Jeremy didn’t fight back against the smears and lies?!!

      3. Allan – Re:”“And what would this ‘swinging’ have consisted of precisely? And when do you think it should have started, and in relation to what exactly?”” and ” I have little doubt that you’ve seen it before, given that I’ve posted it on here several times in the past year or so”
        I am certain that I have never seen the questions you asked me addressed to me before, and I am sure that you never asked them of me before. If you have asked them of me before, please link to them and I will have to apologise for not responding and will be glad to do so.
        If you find that you haven’t addressed such questions to me before, I would ask that you let me know.
        As for the rest of your long account of the demonisation of Mr Corbyn, I think that it is an accurate precis. But I still maintain that someone who could appear more combative (e.g. Chris Williamson), though they would still have been targeted, may have been able to get the message through to more people.
        I guess that we’ll have to agree to disagree on the matter.

      4. Afterthought: And I bet if I did a survey of one hundred people and asked them if they remember Jeremy refusing to apologise FOUR times in the pre-election interview with Andrew Neil in 2019, *90%* of them would say that they do, and that the only reason the other 10% DON’T is because they don’t read a newspaper or watch the news. And if I did a survey of left-wingers and/or people who are into politics, *99%* of them would say that they do, and quite likely 100% of them.

        And you can be absolutely certain that Andy saw my post castigating him for pedaling his falsehood about Jeremy making a ‘grovelling apology’ in the Andrew Neil interview, and then going on to enlarge on his falsehood by saying: ‘That apology played straight into the hands of those in the PLP and media out to destroy the left’, but as on numerous occasions before when an im-poster has posted a falsehood about Jeremy on this site concocted and designed to discredit him and damage his reputation in the eyes of readers of this blog, they pretend that they haven’t seen my post/reply calling out their falsehood and, as such, condemning them for it. Now I have no doubt whatsoever that Andy deliberately and knowingly posted his falsehood, and that he didn’t somehow make a mistake, but if someone DID make such a BIG mistake, then surely they would apologise for doing so, and for misleading readers, as such, and especially younger readers of this site who have only gotten into politics in the past several years and wouldn’t have known any different – ie would have believed that what Andy said was true.

        Well, he’s OBVIOUSLY not gonna admit that he deliberately fabricated it so as to discredit Jeremy, so let’s see if he claims he made a mistake and apologises for doing so. Andy???

      5. Allan – I can’t answer for Andy. If you do resolve the question of whether or not you have asked me those questions previously, please let me know.

      6. Just seen your post, and to start with, I DIDN’T say that I had addressed you yourself in the past regards the response to Jeremy denying that there’s an antisemitism crisis in the party, but that I had posted a link to the Mail article and lengthy passages from it on several occasions in the past year or so, and obviously did so because someone came out with the falsehood that Jeremy never refuted the A/S lies. He DID, and look what happened!

        As for Chris, did it make the slightest bit of difference that he refuted the A/S claims? No, of course it didn’t, and he just got lambasted and condemned for doing so by the MSM and the Jewish newspapers and the CAA and BoD and JLM and LAA et al, and quite early on was tagged a Jew Baiter, and of course – as was ALWAYS the intention of the saboteurs – he was finally suspended – TWICE – and then lost his seat as a consequence – ie lost his job. And just to be clear, the saboteurs could have had Chris suspended a long, long time before they actually did, but they left it until they knew a GE would be happening later that year, and did so knowing that he would be forced to stand as an Independent and, as such, lose his job as an MP. So why mention Chris when he is a perfect example of how effective the saboteurs are and how they can destroy someone.

        But anyway, you keep avoiding answering what I said about Andy’s falsehood (unless you’ve done so whilst I’ve been typing this comment out). Why? Have you nothing to say about it? Or your Likers either! Or any of the regular posters on here for that matter!!

      7. I’m not asking you to answer for Andy, and you know it Goldbach, and you are just playing games. It’s blatantly obvious that it was a lie, and not a mistake that he somehow made, and what I asked you is what do you think of the fact that he did. I mean just the fact that Andy intermittently keeps posting comments of that nature and, as such, keeps repeating the same fraudulent criticisms is a dead giveaway. And as I said in a previous post, it doesn’t add up that someone who thinks so badly of Jeremy – and feels the need to repeat his criticisms of him twenty times a year or more – would also be calling for Jeremy to establish a new party, and making it sound like it would be such an easy thing for Jeremy to do.

        Anyway, I gave you an explicit example of Jeremy denying that the party had an antisemitism crisis in my post earlier (and what the response was as a consequence), but you just go on pretending that he didn’t refute the A/S claims. And the irony is that you cite Chris Williamson as an example of someone who DID speak out – implying that Jeremy DIDN’T – and yet who ended up being totally destroyed by the saboteurs and losing his job as an MP!

        And just one last point. No, make that two. As I’m sure you will agree, the attack and the claims and all the outrage expressed in respect of Ken was all totally fraudulent, and all he did was allude to The Haavara Agreement, and yet in the following year or two he appeared on a number of TV and radio programmes to try and explain about the agreement and that THAT is what he was speaking about on the Vaness Feltz programme, and yet he just got hammered again and again by the press every time he did and, as such, eventually gave up trying to do so and resigned from the LP.

        And the other thing is this: The initial attack on Jeremy (re A/S and the Ken Livingstone episode) was all designed to hit Jeremy really, really hard, and the hidden message to Jeremy was that ‘we will blow you out of the water if you refute our fraudulent claims again, so you have no choice but to play ball, because you’re in a no-win situation’. And when he DID cry foul regards the wreath-laying ceremony and the Panorama hit-job, for example, he got duly slaughtered. So please don’t tell me he should have fought back, and that he should have refuted the A/S claims or whatever, as if to say he didn’t. He DID, and got attacked and vilified and demonised for doing so. And eventually kicked out of the LP for stating the truth. And THAT says it ALL!

      8. Allan – You responded – “Anyway, I have little doubt that you’ve seen it before, given that I’ve posted it on here several times in the past year or so”
        following a comment I made – “Sorry, Allan, I completely missed your comment that this links to.”
        If you intended your comment to be aimed at Andy, it certainly didn’t look like it to me.
        As regards “playing games” – I can assure you that I couldn’t be bothered to waste time doing such a thing. I was simply trying to clarify whether what I took you to be saying was what you intended or not.

      9. P.S. I couldn’t be bothered discussing what Andy said.
        Maybe your discussion should be with him.

      1. Well, I was not talking about that. But, as you mention it, here is the question:

        “Britain’s current system of submarine launched nuclear weapons, known as Trident, is coming to the end of its useful life and will soon have to be scrapped or replaced. What do you think Britain should do when Trident reaches the end of its useful life?”

        So, that question includes the term ‘useful life’ which appears twice.

        Well, that rather assumes that it had a ‘useful life’ in the first place which I do not accept.

        As even Tony Blair stated in his memoirs, “but the contrary decision (not replacing Trident) would not have been stupid.”

        Exactly, it would have been a very good idea. We hear so much talk about the need to spend money carefully but not when it comes to this nonsense.

    1. One of the problems of living in a One Party Monoculture State and becoming more like USA.

  2. I see the daily heil is reporting the rags are gonna force the sick & disabled to look for work…

    Reeves’ll be moaning that the rags have stolen her ideas.

  3. In the catalogue Rachel Reeve goes for a Labour MP;
    As hounds and greyhounds, mongrels, spaniels, curs,
    Shoughs, water-rugs and demi-wolves, are clept
    All by the name of dogs:

  4. She is right-wing Labour incarnate. Pure, self-serving, ignorant malevolence. Their entire social strata want chasing into the sea. THAT’S the only purge we need. Vote accordingly.

    1. They should all be deeply ashamed.How can any decent person be a “friend” of a foreign country which defies UN resolutions and kills children. They disgust me each amd every one of them.

      1. ……and yet strangely there are far too many useless idiots on these pages continue to proselytise the propaganda of Putin the corrupt wannabe imperialist who has maintained himself in power through fear, brutality, imprisonment, torture and murder so that he can continue to enrich himself and his cronies by stealing from the Russian people. Their level of naivety is breathtaking.
        Oh and let’s not forget that the ICC has indited Putin for the abduction of 1,000s of Ukrainian children.

  5. We desperately need proportional representation.

    You look at other northern European countries : Denmark, Sweden, Finland; Norway, even the Netherlands & Germany, by way of contrast to the UK. And PR has given them all stable a social democratic consensus that the far right has found hard to conquer. In Scandinavia, cleaner environments better public services has created a much happier peoples, with those countries consistently at or near the top of the international ‘life satisfaction’ index. Trying to break the Labour – Tory two-party ‘doom loop’ under FPTP is near impossible.

    If Starmer and Reeves are two trweacherous plants, secretly working for the establishment: security and banking elites i.e. big finance, who’d be surprised? Big money will always have willing lackeys prepared to do their bidding even it it undermines democracy. For these billionaires, happy with the status quo, what’s the loss of a couple of milion to stitch up the UK’s political system?

    Wake up to who these people leading Labour really are. Because they sure as hell aren’t socialists.

    1. Andy – Unfortunately, the far right is currently gaining support in all the countries you mention, especially in Sweden and, most notably, Germany. It is not inconceivable that the AfD could be the largest party at the next elections. My view is that the “liberal consensus” in those countries was brought about by the fact that they were relatively wealthy and didn’t exhibit the glaring inequalities that have been evident in the UK and US. I wouldn’t be too confident about the political future in Europe now, given the economic circumstances. Hope I’m wrong.

  6. Who would make the better Chancellor?

    🔵 Jeremy Hunt: 17% (+1)
    🔴 Rachel Reeves: 14% (-3)

    ⚪️ Don’t know: 69% (+3)

    Via @YouGov, 21 Aug (+/- vs 24 Jul)

    Staggeringly bad polling for Labour. Getting people to turnout in the GE could prove nigh on impossible with a really lame manifesto that promises little beyond more austerity and continued misery.

    1. Andy – They must have recorded me as being a “don’t know” when I said Mr Blobby.

  7. Will any of you be taking part in Iain Dales LBC phone-in with Rachel Reeves between 7 and 8pm this evening❓

      1. Not yet

        Not yet? Posted at 10:52pm…almost three hours after the event? Why??

        Not very dedicated, are ya? I mean, there you are, on your alleged Caribbean idyll, with nowt better to do than troll people back in blighty with your pro-smarmerist bollocks – as well as trawl though British broadcasting schedules – without personally taking the opportunity to extol the fuhrer’s right-hand thing.

  8. …For the rest of us great unwashed to benefit from aurally bearing witness to your unparalleled perspicacity.

  9. “…..far too many useless idiots on these pages SteveH? It takes one to know one she smiles &……”

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: