Elections Aftermath: Was our 2019 Vote & the EU Referendum Rigged? #TORYRIG2019

Home Forums Discussion Forum Elections Aftermath: Was our 2019 Vote & the EU Referendum Rigged? #TORYRIG2019

  • This topic is empty.
Viewing 40 posts - 361 through 400 (of 518 total)
  • Author
  • #61704 Reply
    Kim Sanders-Fisher

    When the Labour Leader stood at the Dispatch box on Wednesday to propound his clever arguments at Prime Minister’s Questions his uninspiring opposition was neither targeted nor ‘forensic;’ it was the usual characteristic attempt to ask the same basic question in several different ways, failing dismally at each attempt. Sadly, Sir Keir Starmer has all the captivating exuberance of a stagnant pond, with the murky secrets of his dubious past polluting the fetid waters. It fell to other MPs like the SNPs Ian Blackford, Dr Rupa Huq, Labour and Daisy Cooper LibDem to highlight the glaring injustice and stark disparities between greedy Tory priorities and the hungry children conspicuously and callously left behind by Johnson’s fictitious ‘levelling up’ agenda. We need to call these selfish elitists out to stop the crippling ‘Decimating Down’ deliberately hitting the neglected northern cities the hardest with targeted lockdowns driving people into destitution. Beyond a cursory mention of Manchester, don’t expect Starmer to champion their cause.

    In the Canary Article entitled, “Tory MPs face barrage of criticism after voting to let over a million children ‘go hungry’” they highlight the obscenity of voting to deny meals to hungry children. This is disgraceful considering the money plundered ans squandered by this Tory Government. They say, “Opposition figures have savaged the government after Tory MPs voted against footballer Marcus Rashford’s bid to have free school meals for eligible children extended through the coming holidays. Labour’s motion, which called for the scheme to be extended over school holidays until Easter 2021, was defeated by 261 votes to 322.” Visit the Government Petition webpage to sign this Petition to, “End child food poverty – no child should be going hungry Government should support vulnerable children & #endchildfoodpoverty by implementing 3 recommendations from the National Food Strategy to expand access to Free School Meals, provide meals & activities during holidays to stop holiday hunger & increase the value of and expand the Healthy Start scheme.”

    The Canary report that, “Deputy Labour leader Angela Rayner said the Conservatives had voted to let the more than 1.4 million children eligible for free school meals go hungry through the holidays. ‘Tonight I voted to feed our country’s vulnerable and needy children. The Tories voted to let them go hungry,’ she tweeted, adding: ‘I voted for workers facing hardship in areas under lockdown to get 80% of their incomes. The Tories voted against it. That’s all you need to know.’ Labour MP for Nottingham East Nadia Whittome also attacked the Conservatives. ‘I don’t know how the 322 Tory MPs are sleeping tonight. Because I can’t, knowing that 1.4 million children like Cameron will go hungry this Christmas,’ she said, referring to a boy featured in a documentary she shared. She added: ‘Rishi Sunak spent £500m on the ‘Eat Out to Help Out’ scheme. It costs around £20m to provide free school meals for a week. There is money for half-price Nando’s but there’s no money to feed children?”

    The Canary note that, “The Liberal Democrats’ health and social care spokeswoman Munira Wilson tweeted: ‘It would be hugely unjust for this Govt to allow children to go hungry this winter, particularly in the middle of a pandemic. I urged the Govt to follow the lead of Lib Dem Edu Minister Kirsty Williams in Wales by extending #FreeSchoolMeals over the school holidays. The Liberal Democrats’ health and social care spokeswoman Munira Wilson tweeted: ‘It would be hugely unjust for this Govt to allow children to go hungry this winter, particularly in the middle of a pandemic. I urged the Govt to follow the lead of Lib Dem Edu Minister Kirsty Williams in Wales by extending #FreeSchoolMeals over the school holidays’.”

    The Canary report that, “Some Conservatives, however, defended the decision. Nottingham MP Ben Bradley engaged in a Twitter exchange with Rashford, writing: ‘Gov has lots of responsibilities: supporting the vulnerable, helping people to help themselves, balancing the books. Not as simple as you to make out Marcus. Extending FSM to sch hols passes responsibility for feeding kids away from parents, to the State. It increases dependency.’ Rashford tweeted back: ‘Ben, the economy already pays a high price for child hunger. If children were fed properly you would increase educational attainment and boost life chances. @KelloggsUKI calculated we would spend at least £5.2M a year on lost teaching hours as teachers are caring for hungry kids. ‘And for a more humane response, since March, 32% of families have suffered a drop in income. Nearly 1 million have fallen off the payroll. This is not dependency, this a cry for help. There are no jobs!! 250% increase in food poverty and rising. Nobody said this was simple…”

    The Canary say, “Chief Executive of Child Poverty Action Group Alison Garnham said Britain had ‘reached a low point if in the midst of a pandemic we decide we can’t make sure children in the lowest income families have a nutritious meal in the middle of the day. Tonight’s vote means more children going without and more desperately anxious parents – just as a coronavirus winter approaches’.” Garnham was quoted as saying in the Mirror. “In short it ducks our moral responsibility to protect the country’s most vulnerable children. It will not sit well with all those people from many walks of life who back Marcus Rashford because they do not want child poverty to be ignored any longer.” Has the horrific truth sunk in yet, this is the reality of what the Tories call “levelling up” the removal of funds from the most vulnerable and in need to be sucked upwards into the bank accounts of wealthy Tory cronies, Powerful Corporations and Tory donors’ you realy had to know this was coming with the Tory track record: they never change!

    But in a Skwawkbox Article entitled, “Breaking: Liverpool mayor announces city will provide free school meals during holidays to its vulnerable kids,” it reports Labour Councils are fighting back. “Almost 20,000 children written off by Tories will no longer go hungry as UK’s reddest city steps up Liverpool mayor Joe Anderson has just announced that the city will feed its poor children during school holidays, after the scandal this week of 322 Tory MPs voting not to provide food to kids who receive free school meals during term time – while the government denies financial support to parents who are told to self-isolate via the Tory contact-tracing app. The politically reddest city in the UK is stepping up because the national government is run by a party of people that thinks it’s ok to leave kids starving because there have always been hungry children. Bravo to Joe Anderson – who lost a brother to COVID last week and another to cancer recently – and his colleagues on the city council for protecting our kids and shaming the Tories.”

    In the Skwawkbox Article entitled, “Sky News ‘forgets’ to mention MPs who voted to keep poor children hungry were Tories; Here is a list of them all” they name and shame the heartless MPs who do not care if kids go hungry. They point out how the Tories can hide their shame due to, “Appalling media bias once more on show as cruel Tories again vote to take food from the mouths of poor children Sky News omitted to mention an important fact during its coverage of the disgrace in Parliament this evening as Boris Johnson whipped his MPs to vote against a plan to provide free, hot meals for the nation’s poorest children. Sky tweeted the result, but neglected to mention that the MPs who had voted to keep poor children hungry during school holidays were Tory MPs – and was quickly pulled up by left-wing Labour MP Jon Trickett: 322 Tory MPs were either too callous or too weak to ignore Johnson’s instruction, instead voting – again – to take food out of the mouths of the nation’s most desperately poor kids.”

    The Skwawkbox report that, “A few Tories abstained, but only a handful had the spine and humanity to rebel and vote for the motion to extend free meals in holidays through to next spring.” Just five Tory MPs who rebelled: Caroline Ansell, Robert Halfon, Anne Marie Morris, Holly Mumby-Croft and Jason McCartney. Skwawkbox say, “Almost a million and a half children suffer ‘food insecurity’ during school holidays and teachers report that many are too hungry to learn even during term time, with well over 4 million children living in poverty. Labour’s Angela Rayner was accused earlier today of calling a Tory MP ‘scum’. Based on today’s scandal, at least 322 of them merit that description.”

      Skwawkbox printed a full list of all the MP who callously voted against this bill.

      The shamed Tories include a number who gained Red Wall seats the full list is as follows: Nigel Adams – Selby and Ainsty; Bim Afolami – Hitchin and Harpenden; Adam Afriyie – Windsor; Imran Ahmad Khan – Wakefield; Nickie Aiken – Cities of London and Westminster & Richard Bacon – South; Peter Aldous – Waveney; Lucy Allan – Telford; David Amess – Southend West; Lee Anderson – Ashfield; Stuart Anderson – Wolverhampton South West; Stuart Andrew – Pudsey; Edward Argar – Charnwood; Sarah Atherton – Wrexham; Victoria Atkins – Louth and Horncastle; Gareth Bacon – Orpington; Kemi Badenoch – Saffron Walden; Shaun Bailey – West Bromwich West; Duncan Baker – North Norfolk; Steve Baker – Wycombe; Harriett Baldwin – West Worcestershire; Steve Barclay – North East Cambridgeshire; Simon Baynes – Clwyd South; Aaron Bell – Newcastle-under-Lyme; Scott Benton – Blackpool South; Saqib Bhatti – Meriden; every last one of them Tories, but wait there’s a whole lot more…

      For former Labour constituencies who might or probably were not duped by the false Tory promise of ‘levelling up’ finding their new MP in among those listed here should be a wakeup call’ it is time to stop this sham of the Covert 2019 Rigged Election. Oust these cruel bastards before they cause the working poor any more pain and suffering: Peter Bottomley – Worthing West’ Andrew Bowie – West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine; Karen Bradley – Staffordshire Moorlands; Graham Brady – Altrincham and Sale West; Suella Braverman – Fareham; Jack Brereton – Stoke-on-Trent South; Steve Brine – Winchester; Paul Bristow – Peterborough; Sara Britcliffe – Hyndburn; James Brokenshire – Old Bexley and Sidcup; Anthony Browne – South Cambridgeshire; Fiona Bruce – Congleton; Felicity Buchan – Kensington; Robert Buckland – South Swindon; Alex Burghart – Brentwood and Ongar; Rob Butler – Aylesbury; Alun Cairns – Vale of Glamorgan; Andy Carter – Warrington South; James Cartlidge – South Suffolk;

      The following Tory MPs all chose to have Stuart Andrew cast a Proxy Vote on their behalf: Nickie Aiken – Cities of London and Westminster & Richard Bacon – South Norfolk; Miriam Cates – Penistone and Stocksbridge; Maria Caulfield – Lewes; Alex Chalk – Cheltenham; Rehman Chishti – Gillingham and Rainham; Jo Churchill – Bury St Edmunds’ Greg Clark – Tunbridge Wells; Simon Clarke – Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland; Damian Collins – Folkestone and Hythe; Alberto Costa – South Leicestershire; Geoffrey Cox – Torridge and West Devon; Mims Davies – Mid Sussex & David Davis – Haltemprice and Howden Nadine Dorries – Mid Bedfordshire & Steve Double – St Austell and Newquay; Ruth Edwards – Rushcliffe; Luke Evans – Bosworth; David Evennett – Bexleyheath and Crayford; Michael Fabricant – Lichfield; Mark Francois – Rayleigh and Wickford; Cheryl Gillan – Chesham and Amersham; Jo Gideon – Stoke-on-Trent Central; Helen Grant – Maidstone and The Weald; Oliver Heald – North East

      These Tories also chose to have Stuart Andrew cast a Proxy Vote on their behalf: Hertfordshire; Ranil Jayawardena – North East Hampshire; Laura Farris – Newbury; Simon Fell – Barrow and Furness; Katherine Fletcher – South Ribble; Mark Fletcher – Bolsover; Nick Fletcher – Don Valley; Vicky Ford – Chelmsford; Kevin Foster – Torbay; Lucy Frazer – South East Cambridgeshire; Mike Freer – Finchley and Golders Green; Richard Fuller – North East Bedfordshire; Mark Garnier – Wyre Forest; Nick Gibb – Bognor Regis and Littlehampton; Peter Gibson – Darlington; John Lamont – Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk; Ian Liddell-Grainger – Bridgwater and West Somerset; Marco Longhi – Dudley North; Jonathan Lord – Woking; Karl McCartney – Lincoln; Mark Menzies – Fylde; Stephen Metcalfe – South Basildon and East Thurrock; Nigel Mills – Amber Valley; David Morris – Morecambe and Lunesdale; Guy Opperman – Hexham; Owen Paterson – North Shropshire; Mike Penning – Hemel Hempstead;

      Stuart Andrew also cast a Proxy Vote on behalf of: Chloe Smith – Norwich North) Selaine Saxby – North Devon; Henry Smith – Crawley; Gary Streeter – South West Devon; Mel Stride (Conservative – Central Devon; Edward Timpson – Eddisbury; Jamie Wallis – Bridgend; David Warburton – Somerton and Frome. Other Tory MPs who used a Proxy vote were: Caroline Dinenage – Gosport (Proxy vote cast by Caroline Nokes); Natalie Elphicke – Dover (Proxy vote cast by Maria Caulfield); Nusrat Ghani – Wealden (Proxy vote cast by Steve Baker) Adam Holloway – Gravesham (Proxy vote cast by Maria Caulfield); George Freeman – Mid Norfolk (Proxy vote cast by Bim Afolami); Marcus Fysh – Yeovil (Proxy vote cast by Craig Mackinlay.

      The Tory hall of shame continues with: Theo Clarke – Stafford; Brendan Clarke-Smith – Bassetlaw; Chris Clarkson – Heywood and Middleton; James Cleverly – Braintree; Thérèse Coffey – Suffolk Coastal; Robert Courts – Witney; Claire Coutinho – East Surrey; Virginia Crosbie – Ynys Môn; James Daly – Bury North; David T C Davies – Monmouth; James Davies – Vale of Clwyd; Gareth Davies – Grantham and Stamford; Philip Davies – Shipley; Dehenna Davison – Bishop Auckland; Sarah Dines – Derbyshire Dales; Jonathan Djanogly – Huntingdon; Michelle Donelan – Chippenham;Oliver Dowden – Hertsmere; Jackie Doyle-Price – Thurrock; Richard Drax – South Dorset; Flick Drummond – Meon Valley; David Duguid – Banff and Buchan; Iain Duncan Smith – Chingford and Woodford Green; Mark Eastwood – Dewsbury; Michael Ellis – Northampton North; Tobias Ellwood – Bournemouth East; George Eustice – Camborne and Redruth; Ben Everitt – Milton Keynes North; John Glen – Salisbury.

      The list of shame is seemingly endless: Robert Goodwill – Scarborough and Whitby; Michael Gove – Surrey Heath; Richard Graham – Gloucester; James Gray – North Wiltshire; Chris Grayling – Epsom and Ewell; Chris Green – Bolton West; Damian Green – Ashford; Andrew Griffith – Arundel and South Downs; Kate Griffiths – Burton; James Grundy – Leigh; Jonathan Gullis – Stoke-on-Trent North; Luke Hall – Thornbury and Yate; Stephen Hammond – Wimbledon; Matt Hancock – West Suffolk; Greg Hands – Chelsea and Fulham; Mark Harper – Forest of Dean; Rebecca Harris – Castle Point; Trudy Harrison – Copeland; Sally-Ann Hart – Hastings and Rye; Simon Hart – Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire; John Hayes – South Holland and The Deepings; Chris Heaton-Harris – Daventry; Gordon Henderson – Sittingbourne and Sheppey; Darren Henry – Broxtowe; Antony Higginbotham – Burnley; Damian Hinds – East Hampshire; Kevin Hollinrake – Thirsk and Malton; Philip Hollobone – Kettering;

      More Tories too feeble to stand up for poor kids: Paul Holmes – Eastleigh; John Howell – Henley; Paul Howell – Sedgefield; Nigel Huddleston – Mid Worcestershire; Eddie Hughes – Walsall North; Jane Hunt – Loughborough; Jeremy Hunt – South West Surrey; Tom Hunt – Ipswich; Alister Jack – Dumfries and Galloway; Sajid Javid – Bromsgrove; Mark Jenkinson – Workington; Andrea Jenkyns – Morley and Outwood; Robert Jenrick – Newark; Boris Johnson – Uxbridge and South Ruislip; Gareth Johnson – Dartford; David Johnston – Wantage; Andrew Jones – Harrogate and Knaresborough; Fay Jones – Brecon and Radnorshire; David Jones – Clwyd West; Marcus Jones – Nuneaton; Gillian Keegan – Chichester; Danny Kruger – Devizes; Kwasi Kwarteng – Spelthorne; Andrew Lewer – Northampton South; Brandon Lewis – Great Yarmouth; Caroline Johnson – Sleaford and North Hykeham; Simon Jupp – East Devon; Alicia Kearns – Rutland and Melton; Daniel Kawczynski – Shrewsbury and Atcham.

      Yet more Tory cowards: Julian Knight – Solihull; Greg Knight – East Yorkshire; Robert Largan – High Peak; Andrea Leadsom – South Northamptonshire, yes that is the very same Andrea Leadsom who thought she would be a better PM because she was a mother… some mother who would let poor kids starve! Edward Leigh – Gainsborough; Ian Levy – Blyth Valley; Chris Loder – West Dorset; Mark Logan – Bolton North East; Julia Lopez – Hornchurch and Upminster; Jack Lopresti – Filton and Bradley Stoke; Craig Mackinlay – South Thanet; Cherilyn Mackrory – Truro and Falmouth; Rachel Maclean – Redditch; Alan Mak – Havant; Kit Malthouse – North West Hampshire; Anthony Mangnall – Totnes; Scott Mann – North Cornwall; Julie Marson – Hertford and Stortford; Theresa May – Maidenhead; Jerome Mayhew – Broadland; Johnny Mercer – Plymouth, Moor View; Huw Merriman – Bexhill and Battle; Robin Millar – Aberconwy; Maria Miller – Basingstoke; Amanda Milling – Cannock Chase; Andrew Mitchell – Sutton Coldfield.

      People need to read these names and confront the MPs who are not protecting children from starvation: Gagan Mohindra – South West Hertfordshire; Robbie Moore – Keighley; Penny Mordaunt – Portsmouth North; James Morris – Halesowen and Rowley Regis; Wendy Morton – Aldridge-Brownhills; Kieran Mullan – Crewe and Nantwich; David Mundell – Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale; Sheryll Murray – South East Cornwall; Andrew Murrison – South West Wiltshire; Robert Neill – Bromley and Chislehurst; Caroline Nokes – Romsey and Southampton North; Jesse Norman – Hereford and South Herefordshire; Neil O’Brien – Harborough; Mark Pawsey – Rugby; John Penrose – Weston-super-Mare; Chris Philp – Croydon South; Christopher Pincher – Tamworth; Rebecca Pow – Taunton Deane; Victoria Prentis – Banbury; Mark Pritchard – The Wrekin; Jeremy Quin – Horsham; Will Quince – Colchester; Tom Randall – Gedling; John Redwood – Wokingham; Jacob Rees-Mogg – North East Somerset.

      The list is long: Nicola Richards – West Bromwich East; Angela Richardson – Guildford; Rob Roberts – Delyn; Laurence Robertson – Tewkesbury; Mary Robinson – Cheadle; Andrew Rosindell – Romford; Lee Rowley – North East Derbyshire; Dean Russell – Watford; David Rutley – Macclesfield; Gary Sambrook – Birmingham, Northfield; Paul Scully – Sutton and Cheam; Bob Seely – Isle of Wight; Andrew Selous – South West Bedfordshire; Grant Shapps – Welwyn Hatfield; Alok Sharma – Reading West; Alec Shelbrooke – Elmet and Rothwell; David Simmonds – Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner; Chris Skidmore – Kingswood; Greg Smith – Buckingham; Julian Smith – Skipton and Ripon; Amanda Solloway – Derby North; Ben Spencer – Runnymede and Weybridge; Mark Spencer – Sherwood; Alexander Stafford – Rother Valley; Andrew Stephenson – Pendle; Jane Stevenson – Wolverhampton North East; John Stevenson – Carlisle; Bob Stewart – Beckenham; Iain Stewart – Milton Keynes South.

      Then there is ‘splash the cash’ Rishi Sunak – Richmond (Yorks) not so ready to part with pounds to feed school kids, but the rogues gallery continues: James Sunderland – Bracknell; Desmond Swayne – New Forest West; Robert Syms – Poole; Derek Thomas – St Ives; Maggie Throup – Erewash; Kelly Tolhurst – Rochester and Strood; Justin Tomlinson – North Swindon; Michael Tomlinson – Mid Dorset and North Poole; Craig Tracey – North Warwickshire; Anne-Marie Trevelyan – Berwick-upon-Tweed; Laura Trott – Sevenoaks; Tom Tugendhat – Tonbridge and Malling; Martin Vickers – Cleethorpes; Matt Vickers – Stockton South; Theresa Villiers – Chipping Barnet; Robin Walker – Worcester; Charles Walker – Broxbourne; Matt Warman – Boston and Skegness; Giles Watling – Clacton; Suzanne Webb – Stourbridge; Helen Whately – Faversham and Mid Kent; Heather Wheeler – South Derbyshire; Craig Whittaker – Calder Valley; John Whittingdale – Maldon; Bill Wiggin – North Herefordshire.

      The last disreputable few are: James Wild – North West Norfolk; Craig Williams – Montgomeryshire; Gavin Williamson – South Staffordshire; Mike Wood – Dudley South; William Wragg – Hazel Grove; Jeremy Wright – Kenilworth and Southam; Jacob Young – Redcar; Nadhim Zahawi – Stratford-on-Avon. All Tories except one shamefull indepentdent: Julian Lewis – New Forest East. Yet Skwawkbox say that, “Sky simply called them ‘MPs’. Shame on the whole disgraceful lot of them.”

      In another Skwawkbox Article entitled, “Swindon academy shows infection rate more than 333 TIMES higher than surrounding community” we get a strong hint of why the Tory Government is so adamant about denying free school meals to children when they are not in school. They say that, “The Wilkes Academy in Swindon has been closed after seeing a level of coronavirus infections more than 333 times as high as in the community around it. The town’s overall 14-day rate stands at 92 infections per 100,000 – but the equivalent rate in the school is 30,481 per 100,000, a rate of over 30 percent. Pupils have been sent home and face to face classes suspended in response to 85 pupils and staff infected out of a population of around 270.” Despite growing damning evidence that Covid is being spread via the schools the Tory Government is absolutely determined to keep children in school.

      Skwawkbox say that, “The government continues to deny that the infection spreads freely among children and from them to others They are wilfully ignoring the clear fact that keeping schools open is fuelling the second wave, while pointlessly closing hospitality venues. Hospitality represents around 4% of new infections in England – and school-age children more than a third. Johnson’s lockdown delays in the spring caused tens of thousands of needless deaths. His latest refusal to institute a ‘circuit-breaker’ lockdown in England is expected to cost at least 1,000 lives a week from now through to April.” This wilful negligence is a conscious eugenics decision to use children as unwitting vectors to assist in culling the elderly and most vulnerable ‘economically inactive to lower their burden on the state. We must fight back to derail their Covicide, demand an Investigation into the Covert 2019 Rigged Election to delegitimize the result and therby remove the Tories from office before more people die needlessly. DO NOT MOVE ON!

    #61715 Reply
    Kim Sanders-Fisher

    For me it was always incomprehensible to imagine that former Labour supporters could possibly have consciously ignored the relentlessly cruel austerity agenda of the past decade that has plunged so many of their families into destitution, to overwhelmingly ‘lend’ their votes to the perpetrators of that atrocity in the Covert 2019 Rigged Election. Despite expansive lies supported by the biased BBC and corrupt right wing media to promote the illusive claim of ‘levelling up’ the Tories were never going to change; once again ‘Free school meals for the poorest children’ forms the bedrock of this Government’s intentional “Decimating Down” plan. We have sunk to this low point before, right after former PM Theresa May announced help for the “Just about Managing,” but the only discernable difference is a new slogan for Tory lies! To claim voters were too gullible to recognize Johnson’s ruthless intentions as PM or that they were so obsessed with Brexit they just didn’t care is totally insane: we must investigate the Tory ‘landslide victory.’

    The deceitfully fabricated façade of ‘levelling up’ crumbled into dust over the past week as the PM, probably under the direction of his master manipulator Dominic Cummings, carved up the country into three tiers of increasing oppression to intentionally destroy the economies of the Labour supporting cities in the north. The refusal to acknowledge that it was not the hospitality sector, but the schools that were driving the new surge in Covid infections remains discreetly obscured by the press as the Government double-down on the pressure to keep schools open by voting against the support for free school meals during the holidays. These young ‘vectors’ are far too important to the Cummings eugenics project to cull the ‘economically inactive’ elderly, disabled and vulnerable all crammed into multigenerational homes in deprived areas; the Tories will not budge despite the exposure of their hypocrisy. The penalty for a school closure to suppress the virus is that the children will be forced into starvation without Government support.

    Back in a 2018 Evolve Politics Article entitled, “Tories launch scheme that completely destroys their own argument for cutting Free School Meals” they were playing a similar sleight of hand game to fool the British public. “Despite implementing cruel policies that will reportedly steal free school meals from the mouths of a million disadvantaged children, the Tories have spent today promoting a new scheme that completely flies in the face of their illogical arguments for implementing their latest despicable free school meals policy. With great fanfare, the Tories today announced the Holiday Activities and Food Research Fund which will – no word of a lie – look at how to help disadvantaged children to benefit from ‘healthy meals and enriching activities’.”

    Evolve Politics reported that, “Launching the fund, the Department for Education said the fund would go to organisations to explore: ‘how best to help the most disadvantaged children to benefit from healthy meals and enriching activities’ and was designed to ‘help to ensure that every child, whatever their background or wherever they are growing up, has the opportunity to reach their potential’. Incredibly, the announcement of the pilot programme comes just three days before the government are set to restrict access to free school meals.” They said, “what’s more, the Tories are trying to take all the credit for the new fund – despite it not even being their idea! Labour MP Frank Field first introduced a private member’s bill calling for local authorities to be required to provide food and activities for children during school holidays. But Education minister Nadim Zahawi made it clear that the government would not support the bill, saying that he did not believe that primary legislation was required.”

    Exposing the charade Evolve Politics said, “Instead, the government has put a tiny amount into a pilot programme, and is claiming all the credit. The government cut £26bn from the welfare budget in 2016/17 alone, so the £2m for the fund represents just 0.008% of the money cut from welfare in that year. Put another way, it’s worth less than 50p for each of the 4.1m British children now living in poverty. And whilst this is just a pilot project, there is no holiday project which could possibly make up for the damage caused by ongoing cuts. As usual, Twitter was quick to respond to the Tories’ latest deeply ironic PR scheme.” [email protected] on Mar 29, 2018. Tweeted: “Weve launched a new fund to support disadvantaged families during the school holidays. We want every child to reach their potential. That’s why this fund will support new holiday programs for the most disadvantaged families. Because healthy meals and activities in the holidays can contribute to their development and improved attainment.”

    But while the Conservative Mar 29, 2018 Tweet claims, “We’ve launched a new fund to support disadvantaged families during the school holidays. We want every child to reach their potential. That’s why this fund will support new holiday programs for the most disadvantaged families. Because healthy meals and activities in the holidays can contribute to their development and improved attainment.” Evolve Politics noted the widespread skepticism as “Highly [email protected] Tweeted: “How do you qualify?? The poorest families don’t get free school meals, so do you have to be even poorer to get this??? There were 3.9 million children living in poverty in the UK in 2014-15 That’s 29% of children or 9 in a class of 30. (Source: Households Below Average Income An analysis of the income distribution 1994/95 – 2015/16 tables 4a and 4b Department of Work and Pensions 2016.)” The current Tory claim that Universal Credit and other support packages make prioritizing free school meals unnecessary is eerily familiar!

    Commenting on this announcement back in 2018 Evolve Politics wrote, “At the moment, children from families receiving Universal Credit are eligible for free meals. But after April 1st, an earnings threshold of £7,400 will be implemented, with families earning more than that no longer eligible, although those already in receipt of meals will continue to get them. The Children’s Society has reported that the Tories’ changes will result in one million poor children missing out on free school meals.This whole charade really sums up the Tory austerity agenda in a nutshell: force millions of children into poverty with one utterly despicable policy, and then throw them a few crumbs with another and hope everybody just shuts up. Let’s hope the Tories don’t also expect those children to be grateful.” This is the Tory deprivation agenda that Boris Johnson inherited from his Tory predecessor that formed the basis of an disgustingly consistent track record of deliberate deprivation that voters would need to accept in order to vote Tory: they did not!

    Published at the same time The Week Article entitled “Children to ‘go hungry’ after free school meals cuts” they highlighted how the, “Tories face backlash for exempting Northern Ireland from reforms which could affect one million children. Under the new legalisation, English families on universal credit will have their income threshold for free school meals slashed to £7,400 a year. The cuts mean around 212,000 children in London stand to go hungry, 130,000 in the West Midlands and another 130,000 in the North West.” Sam Royston of the Children’s Society wrote in The Guardian that “the total number of children who lose out could be as high as one million, the majority from working class families. Once a family with one child passes the £7,400 mark, it will need to earn an extra £1,000 a year, working 2.4 hours more each week at the national living wage, to cover the cost, he says.” He also cited research that found “loss of free school meals is a major disincentive to work” – extra hours would deny future support.

    The Week note that, Northern Ireland would to be protected from free school meal cuts despite the fact that “the Government had just taken direct control of budgets, the same threshold for eligibility will be nearly double the rest of the country, at £14,000.” They report that “HuffPost UK says this has led to ‘fresh criticism’ of Theresa May’s alliance with the DUP…” Evolve Politics commented that “In order to get the requisite amount of votes for a deeply unpopular policy, they are reduced to exempting Northern Ireland from the fallout of that policy so that the DUP can vote it through for other areas. The perverseness is astounding.” At the time, “A last-minute series of votes tabled by Labour aimed at blocking changes to universal credit benefit thresholds and mitigating the effects of the cuts was defeated…” But they said that, “Whatever the economic rationale behind the move, it never looks good for the party in power to be seen to be taking food away from children – as Margaret ‘milk snatcher’ Thatcher found out in 1970.”

    It was a slew of policies like this that would have dissuaded Labour voters and even the allegedly critical older voters in ‘Red Wall’ constituencies from trusting a serial liar like Boris Johnson not to continue punishing the working poor in northern cities to the point where they would seriously consider ‘lending’ the Tories their vote. Grandparents who have had their children move back home after an eviction caused by the wicked deprivation and stalled payout of Universal Credit would not vote for the grandchildren, now crammed into their house, to go short of food. I simply cannot believe that their fantasy nostalgia for pre EU Britain was enough to generate such overwhelming selfishness in the elderly that they accepted the strong possibility of condemning their grandchildren to starve by voting for Boris to ‘Get Brexit Done’. Do I think these same delusional voters were so deeply troubled by reports of how Corbyn was inadequately dealing with fantisemitism that they could not support Labour; this was a pathetically obscure red herring!

    Were such woefully bizarre and inaccurate lines of warped reasoning enough to justify a Tory ‘landslide victory’ in the Covert 2019 Rigged Election? Despite a nonexistent ground campaign with Tory candidates, including Johnson himself, not even bothering to show up for Hustings, if valid, such a win would have been truly astounding. After an even more shambolic election campaign than ‘the Maybot,’ where Boris Johnson was so consistently heckled by the public that the BBC had to stage manage small meticulously well controlled groups in their effusively supporting coverage of the PM and he was once forced to hide in a fridge, he shocked the nation with a ‘landslide victory!’ Why do the public believe this clear impossibility? The conspicuous absence of victorious Tories explaining their triumph should have alerted us all to the scam. But the Tory controlled BBC bailed out Boris yet again by parading dozens of Labour MPs on TV shows and forcibly humiliating them into selling the veracity of a totally fabricated defeat.

    Within just a few short months Johnson was manipulating the Covid crisis to devastate northern businesses, punish the working poor, disadvantage their children and most sickening of all cull their elderly relatives with the Cummings eugenics ‘Slaughter of the Sheeple!” So why would Johnson deliberately kill off his strongest voting support base? Dictators are liberated from the unreliable vagaries of actually allowing the population to vote in free and fair elections. If this corrupt Tory Government is allowed to get away with their falsified win in the Covert 2019 Rigged Election, there will be no further opportunities to restore our democracy after they solidify their absolute power with crash-out Brexit. The no-deal scenario was planned from day one as it will provide catastrophic hardship bringing an already severely weakened and subjugated population to their knees, ripe for excessive Tory exploitation that will further enrich the wealthy elite. We must act immediately to derail this deadly process with robust opposition.

    Robust opposition will require the removal of the Tory Trojan horse, Captain of Capitulation Keir Starmer. The timid enabling of the Tories refusal to fund free school meals drew abhorrent, but sadly accurate comparisons with a previous Tory PM. The Skwawkbox Article entitled, “Starmer should be shouting about scandal of people having to feed poor kids because Tories are psychopaths – not sounding like David Cameron” lays his inadequacies bare. They say that, “Keir Starmer has appalled many Labour supporters by ‘doing a Cameron’ on English people’s response to the Tories’ conscious cruelty toward the nation’s poorest and most vulnerable children. The Tories voted earlier this week to leave at least 1.5 million children in England hungry during school holidays (and any eventual lockdown), despite a massive campaign by footballer Marcus Rashford and his supporters – and in spite of Johnson’s u-turn during the summer on Rashford’s initial campaign to provide food for kids entitled to free school meals.”

    The Skwawkbox report that, “Labour – rightly and unusually under Starmer – opposed the Tories and exposed the cruelty at the heart of the conservative party, but Starmer has now made Johnson’s life easier by opting to treat the response of English people, councils, football clubs and businesses as if it’s a positive and not a scandal that they have to step up and fill the gap left by the Tories’ utter disregard for the wellbeing of the nation’s children. Starmer tweeted a Daily Mirror headline about the response and added his own rider implying that it’s the people’s responsibility to ‘get us through this crisis’ of starving children. He didn’t even mention the Tories: It was a comment reminiscent of David Cameron’s appalling attempt to treat food banks as part of the welfare state, instead of the damning indictment of the Tories’ contempt for the poor, including millions of ‘working poor’ people.”

    Skwawkbox report that, “Labour giant Clement Attlee rightly took the view that for a government or people to rely on charity to fill the gaps left by inadequate taxes and state action is anything but a positive thing” He is quoted as saying, “Charity is a cold grey loveless thing. If a rich man wants to help the poor, he should pay his taxes gladly, not dole out money at a whim.” Skwawkbox assert that, “The response of the UK’s people, councils and businesses is hugely praiseworthy and has become essential because of the Tories’ reckless disregard for children and the poor. But it is not their job to provide something that government should be doing. It is a desperate last resort and an absolute scandal that they are having to do it.” They say that, “Keir Starmer should be loudly and relentlessly be calling attention to that, not sounding like David ****ing Cameron.” It is well past time to unambiguously ditch the deceitful pretence of the Tory ‘levelling up’ agenda; they have unequivocally eradicated that fantasy by letting kids starve,

    If you really were taken in by the bold, but totally vacuous slogan ‘Get Brexit Done;” how is that ‘oven ready deal’ that was not just half baked, but still growing the wheat to mill into flour; how is that deeply duplicitous deception working for you? When you hear solid evidence that the Tory Party used public funds to create defamatory lies and distribute this vile propaganda to deliberately deceive you and influence your vote, do you think their crime should be punishable with jail sentences or rewarded with a stolen victory? Do you think the ongoing Tory plundering of public funds to enrich their cronies and Corporate donors should continue unabated with the Tory Government able to shut down Judicial Review, abolish the Electoral Commission and install compliant politically appointed Judges? Is starving our children a necessary price to pay for the promised Brexit utopia that is rapidly shaping up to be a dystopian nightmare scenario enabling a prolonged Tory dictatorship of slave labour, hardship and extreme deprivation?

    Sadly it has become almost as much of a priority to unseat the current Labour Leader as it is to oust PM Boris Johnson and his corrupt Tory cabal. While Rashford’s efforts are to be applauded, it should not require a footballer to dropkick a conscience into the minds of thoughtless, detached and far too wealthy political leaders. We need to respect the fact that not only are the ‘Res Wall’ constituencies seriously aggrieved by the betrayal of their new Tory representatives, they never voted them into power during the Covert 2019 Rigged Election. The massive proliferation of TV reporters avidly encouraging carefully selected participants to rant about their anti-Labour gripes have all miraculously evaporated; they served their purpose supporting the fake narrative, bit now local views need to be tightly gagged to keep the Tories in power unchallenged. We cannot rely on the BBC or conventional right wing media to voice our concerns, but then again, we cannot afford to remain passively silent as we slide into Tory Dictatorship. DO NOT MOVE ON!

    #61746 Reply
    Kim Sanders-Fisher

    The vile totality of the horrific truth of the shame, blame and the recrimination is now focused on the Tory Party whose deprivation agenda is discretely constrained in a bed if lies, but the horrific reality rained down in the Party with unrelenting force this week as they belligerently clung to their inhumane plan to deny free school meals to the most disadvantaged children in the UK. The feeble excuse that councils are being provided with funds conveniently neglects to mention how far those funds are expected to stretch and who must be excluded from any future access to rescue in dealing with the pandemic if the funds are diverted elsewhere on protecting children from starvation. Under Government cuts Local authorities have already been authorized to relinquish all fiscal responsibility for care of the elderly and disabled; the stark choice is save the young by sacrificing the elderly! The Tories have hidden this stark reality within a blizzard of Government spending that obscures some devastating gaps in the Social Safety net.

    A Skwawkbox Article highlights familial shame as a brother vents his disgust at a shameless Tory MP in the Skwawkbox piece entitled, “Charlatan… self-serving waste of space – MP’s own brother’s damning verdict after Tory tries to justify voting to keep kids hungry,” They say that, “A Facebook discussion of his attempt to excuse his decision to vote to keep poor children hungry has led to an embarrassing bombshell for Blyth Valley’s Tory MP Ian Levy. Levy wrote a self-justifying Facebook post claiming the public outrage, at the Tories’ appalling determination not to provide meals for 1.4 million of England’s poorest children during the school holidays (and any eventual lockdown), was ‘extremely disappointing’. Levy also justified his vote by pointing to the Tories giving free school meals to ‘another 50,0000 children’. He neglected to mention that the vote in fact denied free school meals to another million children, in one of the biggest political scandals of 2018.” So shame on him…

    The Skwawkbox recount how, “the outraged discussion of Levy’s excuses was about to lead to serious embarrassment for Levy – as his own brother Grahame chipped in on the thread with a withering verdict on the Tory MP, he described as a ‘Charleton’ [sic] and ‘a self serving waste of space’ For good measure, Grahame, who now lives in Scotland, added that, I feel sorry for the folk of Blyth. So great was the outrage at the MP’s comments and vote that Labour MP Ian Lavery had to put out a tweet clarifying that he’s not the Tory MP with a vaguely similar name: Ian Lavery [email protected] Tweeted that, “For the sake of accuracy and complete clarity my name is IAN LAVERY the Labour MP for Wansbeck & last night I voted FOR the extension of Free School Meals #FSM It was IAN LEVY the Tory MP for Blyth Valley that voted AGAINST feeding the kids” No one wants to be tainted withthis Tory slime. S will the Tories U-turn to avert further embarrassment? Sadly they are shameless!

    The Canary Article entitled, “Over 2,000 paediatricians write to Boris Johnson asking he extend free school meals for the holidays More than 2,00 paediatricians have signed a letter urging Boris Johnson to extend free school meals to vulnerable children during the holidays. The open letter from the RCPCH members says: Childhood hunger is an issue that should transcend politics. Few would disagree that one of our most basic human responsibilities is to ensure children have enough to eat!” The article then says: “We call on the UK Government to match the pledges of the Welsh and Scottish Governments and the Northern Ireland Executive, to continue to provide children from low-income backgrounds with free meals over the coming weeks and to then extend this at least until the Easter school holiday, as they have done in Wales and Scotland.”

    The canary say that, “Members of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health (RCPCH) said they are shocked by the government’s ‘refusal’ to do so.” It says “they praised footballer Marcus Rashford for his ‘powerful campaigning’ on the issue. Businesses and organisations across England have pledged to offer free food to children from low income backgrounds. It comes as MPs rejected a bid from Labour, backed by the Manchester United star, to extend free school meals over the holidays until Easter. Rashford’s own campaign goes further than what Labour has called for, as the footballer has petitioned the government to:
    – Expand free school meals to all under-16s where a parent or guardian is in receipt of Universal Credit or equivalent benefit
    – Provide meals & activities during all holidays,
    – Increase the value of Healthy Start vouchers to at least £4.25 per week, and expand the scheme.”

    The Canary report that, “Labour has now warned it’ll bring the issue back to the House of Commons if ministers don’t change course in time for Christmas. Shadow education secretary Kate Green called on the prime minister to meet with Rashford’s taskforce ‘as a matter of urgency’ to discuss its proposals for ending child poverty.’ They say, ‘Johnson’s own party colleague Robert Halfon said meeting with Rashford was a ‘no-brainer’. While fellow Tory MP Tobias Ellwood said extending provision over the holidays is a ‘simple and practical vehicle’ to support families. He called on the government to ‘re-visit’ the option. Councils, including Conservative-run bodies, have announced stop-gap measures to cover the October half-term break which begins on 26 October.”

    The Canary report on, “Local councils, Tory-run Kensington and Chelsea council said it will pay for free school meals for eligible pupils in the borough. While other Tory-controlled councils getting on board include Hillingdon, Medway, and Wandsworth. Tory West Midlands mayor Andy Street said the government should make ‘a clear decision’ on whether it would or wouldn’t fund free school meals over holidays. He added that it should not be ‘a last-minute thing’.” Meanwhile, “The Labour leader of Birmingham City Council pledged to provide 61,000 eligible youngsters with meals. It will be in a scheme which will cost the local authority between £800,000 and £1m. And the mayor of Liverpool said he was ‘not prepared to stand by and watch”, as he announced £300,000 of funding’.”

    Businesses have also joined the fray as, “McDonald’s UK has also offered support to families. It’s announced a partnership with Fare Share UK to provide one million meals for families in need. Downing Street has declined to praise such outlets for stepping in, with a Number 10 spokesperson saying: I believe the PM said during PMQs that free school meals will continue during term time and that he wants to continue to support families throughout the crisis so they have cash available to feed kids if they need to.” It is not a good look… But even worse has been reported from Tories desperate to defed this self-serving bill.

    In the Canary Article entitled, “Children in ‘crack dens’ and ‘brothels’? A Tory MP accidentally exposed the state of Britain’s care system.” In a now deleted tweet, Conservative MP for Mansfield Ben Bradley said that in his constituency, “One kid lives in a crack den, another in a brothel’. He went on to say that free school meal vouchers effectively lined the pockets of drug dealers and pimps. This tweet was part of a defensive thread explaining why he was one of over 300 Conservative MPs who voted against proposals to provide disadvantaged children in England with free meals until Easter 2021.”

    But the Canary say, “Bradley’s comments didn’t go unnoticed on Twitter: Dr Rosena [email protected] Tweeted: “Putting “£20 going to a crack den” aside. It alarms me that Ben Bradley knows there’s a child living in a brothel/crack den in his patch, and he’s seemingly content, knowing that. I wouldn’t sleep if there was evidence a child in Tooting was in that situation.” Un a seoerate response, “David [email protected] Tweeted, “It turns out that ghoul Ben Bradley – who says parents of hungry kids will somehow spend school meal vouchers on crack and prostitutes – claimed £58,985.65 in HoC expenses in 11 months. That’s £5,362.33 a month. Free. Who’s really bleeding the system @BBradley_Mans?” While, [email protected] wrote, “Tories: Good work, lads. All that focusing on Angela Rayner seems to have distracted the attention from us being horrible child-starving bastards. We’ve got through the week unscathed!”

    The Canary say that, “Ben Bradley: Bradley may be lying in his shocking tweet. Or perhaps he has inadvertently shone a light on the dismal state of Britain’s care system under the Tory government.” Reporting on those “forced out of care, A spokesperson for Become, a charity for children in care, told The Canary: Though we don’t know the specifics relating to the situation in Mansfield, we do know that lots of children leaving care will end up in desperation coming out of the care system without support. Too many are left homeless or living in unsuitable accommodation. We are calling on the government to end this care cliff so that care leavers can get the support they need. In June 2020, children’s charity Just for Kids Law published a report revealing that hundreds of vulnerable 16- and 17-year-olds aren’t being taken into care. Many are left to fend for themselves in unregulated accommodation, while others face homelessness, leaving them vulnerable to exploitation and abuse.”

    The Canary say that, “Regardless of whether Bradley’s comment is true or not, it has shone a light on the Tory government’s appalling failures to protect the welfare of vulnerable children. The vote against feeding hungry children was just another indication of the government’s stubborn and determined campaign to neglect the children and young people most in need of support. Perhaps Bradley should focus his energies on ensuring no child in his constituency is living in unsafe conditions, rather than advocating against free school meals on Twitter and Newsnight.”

    Meanwhile as the nation remains conveniently distracted by the present fight for survival, far worse looms just ahead. In another Canary Article entitled, “The price of groceries could soar in the event of a no-deal Brexit,’ they warn how, ‘Import costs for everyday items could rise by around a third in the event of a no-deal Brexit.” They report on how, “This would make the household shopping basket ‘much more expensive’, a major UK business group has warned. The Canary highlight how, ‘The cost of moving goods could also rise due to import taxes’.” They say, “Restrictions to the number of UK lorries that can enter the EU could put businesses across the country at risk, Logistics UK said. Logistics UK chief executive David Wells urged the government to keep working towards a deal. He said a no-deal scenario could drive inflation up as a result of the rise in prices for imported goods.”

    The Canary report on, “a letter to the Sunday Times, he said: Everyday household items we import will become more expensive under World Trade Organisation tariffs, some by 30% or more. This will make the household shopping basket much more expensive, particularly in the early part of 2021 when we rely on imports for much of our fresh food. Senior cabinet minister Michael Gove has acknowledged that leaving the transition period without a trade deal would cause ‘some turbulence’,” They say, “In his letter, Wells added: The actual cost of moving goods will also increase, if new vehicles, parts and tyres are also subject to tariffs. This is more than ‘turbulence’, as suggested by Mr Gove last week, and logistics businesses, operating on 2% margins, cannot afford to take on these costs.”

    With regard to increased risk, “A government spokesperson said: The Prime Minister has been clear that a negotiated outcome at the end of the transition period remains our preference. The EU has now agreed to a genuine intensification of negotiations, with talks taking place daily, and both sides recognising that time is extremely short. At the end of the year we will be outside the single market and the customs union and intensive planning is under way to help ensure that businesses are ready to seize the opportunities that it will bring. Citing concerns around permits for lorries to access the EU market in the event of a no-deal, Wells said: The permit quota available to UK operators will fall short by a factor of four, putting businesses at risk right across the country. We are urging government to keep pressing for a deal with Brussels, to protect not only our industry but the economy as a whole.”

    At the start of the pandemic MP awarded themselves over £7000 extra a tear to help them cope with the rigors and extra demands of working from home. Now they are about to award themselves yet another above inflation pay rise, but they do not thing frontline nursing staff in the NHS who have risked their lives to treat Covid patients deserve a little extra pay. No “we all need to tighten our belts” after a ‘we’ are all in this together. This, despite expecting the working poor to be able to subsist on two thirds of minimum wage the Tories adamantly refuse to extend the furlough scheme. Now they appear astounded that parents who have been told not to work and are trying to get by on a greatly reduced income are struggling to feed their children. They rant about parents not taking responsibility for the welfare of their children when they inflicted this hardship on us all. Tories expect charity to pick up the tab for feeding starving school kids because the Tory Government is not responsible for the welfare of its most vulnerable citizens.

    How is that ‘levelling up’ agenda working for you? We as a nation don’t have to compliantly stand by while this Tory Government wrecks havoc on our economy and our survival as a free democracy, we can fight back. The sooner we challenge the dictates of this corrupt Government the better. There is ample legitimate reason to question the incomprehensible result of the Covert 2019 Rigged Election and demand an Investigation into the outcome. In any legitimate democracy it would be considered criminal corruption for the Government in power to use public funding to pay a charity to create defamatory propaganda to deliberately sabotage the electoral chances of their opposition party. But is the UK still a democracy in the true sense of the word; it will soon descend into a fascist dictatorship if we fail to act immediately to prevent this from progressing further. Dictatorships take decades to remove and the UK is most of the way there already. Crash-out Brexit will be the final heave-ho for UK freedom: fight back! DO NOT MOVE ON!

    #61766 Reply
    Kim Sanders-Fisher

    Are we really “All in this together?” Not! The Covid crisis has put Tory greed into overdrove as they relentlessly squander public funds. In the Morning Star Article entitled, “Pay rise plans for MPs amid pandemic criticised by unions,” they report how, “Unions have condemned a proposal to raise MPs’ salaries next year while ministers refuse to negotiate a rise for public-sector workers who have maintained services during the pandemic. MPs could receive a pay rise of more than £3,300 a year from next April under new proposals from the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (Ipsa). Ipsa is the body responsible for overseeing MPs’ pay, pensions and expenses and is independent from Parliament.” We should bear in mind that despite equally robust restraints on wage increases and the continuation of frozen benefits the Tories accepted an above inflation pay rise in 2019 and an additional operational bonus of £7000 due to extra pressures caused by Covid over and above their often obscene ‘expenses’ claims.

    The Morning Star say, “some MPs have expressed unease about being awarded an increase in their current £79,468 salary at a time when many of their constituents are facing redundancies and economic uncertainty. Tooting Labour MP Dr Rosena Allin-Khan said she would not take the pay rise or, if unable to refuse it, would donate it to charity. Even Tory business minister Nadhim Zahawi described the proposal as ‘inappropriate.’ Mark Serwotka, general secretary of public-sector union PCS, told the Star: ‘The generous pay rise for MPs stands in stark contrast to the thousands of public-sector workers who have suffered pay restraint for more than a decade. Thousands of workers in job centres, at the borders, in tax offices and at airports have kept the country going during a global pandemic and public-health crisis. They deserve no less than a significant above-inflation pay rise and safe working conditions for the phenomenal work they have done throughout the coronavirus crisis. Anything less is an insult to their courageous efforts.”

    According to the Morning Star, “The government is also being urged to give nurses an immediate rise, and Prime Minister Boris Johnson has been condemned for doing ‘absolutely nothing’ about bringing forward pay talks. Dame Donna Kinnair, general secretary of the Royal College of Nursing, will tell a virtual conference on Thursday that Mr Johnson has not yet entered into talks, despite 14 health unions calling for discussions since July. She will also say that the government should commit to a 12.5 per cent pay increase for NHS nursing staff when it sets out its spending priorities next month. Ms Kinnair will add: ‘Some of [Mr Johnson’s] colleagues tried to tell us we’d just had a rise. One even said there were other priorities. ‘Before they get any ideas this winter, I have something simple to say to Boris Johnson: we don’t want claps, medals or pin badges this time. Just pay us fairly for the tough job that we do’.”

    The Morning Star report that, “Unison assistant general secretary Christina McAnea said: ‘The public servants who really need a wage rise are the ones who’ve kept us safe, cared for us and kept services running for the past few months. With infections rising it looks like we’re hurtling towards a repeat of the situation in the spring. It’s time for the government to do the right thing and give an early and significant rise of at least £2,000 to every health worker in the country. Care staff also deserve a substantial increase in pay’.”

    The Canary Article entitled, “Communities rally to feed hungry children as ministers leave them high and dry” they highlight the extent of the betrayal of our children by this selfish Tory Government. They say, “After a shocking 320 Tory MPs voted to prevent children living in poverty from receiving free school meals during the holidays, local businesses, authorities and community groups are stepping in to plug the gap in duty-of-care. Meanwhile, ministers face a damaging grassroots Tory revolt over the issue. Dozens of people from a range of organisations have stepped in to help their local communities. Health secretary Matt Hancock, who voted against the motion to feed hungry children, has leapt at the chance to praise their ‘absolutely wonderful’ efforts. Meanwhile, he insists that the government has already provided millions to town halls to help their communities.”

    The Canary report on how the success of, A Petition from footballer Marcus Rashford, who has been spearheading demands for the extension of free meals in England over the school holidays, has passed 800,000 signatures, piling further pressure on the government to act. Hancock told Sky News he agrees ‘very strongly’ with ‘the purpose’ of Rashford’s campaign, saying: ‘I think we’re all inspired by the way that he’s led that campaign.’ Whilst Rashford is no doubt delighted that the health minister is theoretically in favour of feeding children, he did question the government’s willingness to engage with him on the issue. Hancock told BBC Breakfast that the prime minister had communicated with Rashford on the topic: But Rashford’s reply suggested they had not spoken since the government’s U-turn on providing food vouchers during the summer break in June: “Hancock has also said that Universal Credit had increased by £20 a week, while central government has already provided £63 million to local authorities so that they can support people.”

    The Canary say, “He hinted that further help could be given, amid reports the government is planning a partial climbdown in time for the Christmas holidays. He told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme: Our attitude and our purpose it to ensure that everybody gets the support they need and no child, of course, no child should go hungry, nobody could possibly want that. The question is how best to do it. Hancock was challenged over whether decisions by councils, businesses and charities to step in showed that more direct action is needed. He apparently sidestepped the question, saying: I think that’s absolutely wonderful that companies have come forward and are playing their part and supporting people in these very difficult times.” He totally failed to comprehend that struggling businesses and concerned citizens should not need to take on the responsibility of the Government to protect children from the misery of starvation in a national health emergency.

    Why are Government Ministers so eager to use public funds to carry out unnecessary and costly military interventions overseas that only serve to intensify terrorist activity targeting the UK, nut they consistently fail to protect the most vulnerable members of our society from harm? We do not need Trident we need to end child poverty, destitution and homelessness! The Canary quote Hancock saying that, I also think that it’s brilliant that the councils are coming forward, having been funded by central government, £63 million has gone to councils so that they can do exactly what you say, so that they can support people and make sure that everybody and every child gets the support that they need,” he said. They say “Despite rumours of a grassroots revolt among local Tory councils, Hancock persisted in his view that all was well, saying ‘of course’ he welcomes the support from councils, ‘because that is the councils delivering with the funding that has been provided by central government’. To put the £63m funding in perspective:

    Greater Manchester alone has been granted a £60m relief package to help businesses affected by coronavirus restrictions. Local leaders originally asked for £90m.
    • The £63m funding is intended to cover all coronavirus related hardship; not school meals. Leaders of Warwickshire County Council said to the BBC that ‘they had already spent all the money allocated under the £63m fund… and it was not enough to fund school meals too.’
    • As The Canary previously reported, the government has squandered nearly a billion pounds giving out coronavirus related contracts to its friends. Much of that money has simply been wasted.
    • Meanwhile, taxpayers continue to subsidise MPs’ meals – to the tune of £4.4m in 2018.”
    That really is an obscene fact!

    The Canary point out, “While government ministers stand by and applaud, humans are stepping up, despite their own hardships, to feed hungry children in their communities.” They list a few of the businesses who were eager to contribute, “First stepping in to help include Barry’s Tearoom in Cumbria, Greenfields Farm in Telford, The Watering Can in Liverpool, Jordan’s Cafe in Worthing and Count House Cafe in Cornwall. Rashford, who has used his social media profile to highlight examples of businesses that have pledged to help with meals for local children tweeted: Once again, communities are showing their power and resilience to look after each other in the face of shocking behaviour from ministers who’ve seemingly abandoned hungry children.”

    The Tories remain oblivious to the rampant inequality ravaging the UK. In the Morning Star Article entitled, “Millions face poverty and deprivation under strict Tier-3 lockdown restrictions,” they highlight workers severely impacted by the Tory Government’s self-serving and unnecessarily punitive Covid restrictions that have uniquely targeted northern Labour heartlands including those stolen in the Covert 2019 Rigged Election. Following Andy Burnham’s defiant protest over the impoverishment of the city they report on, “Protesters to take to Manchester’s streets in anger at government’s ‘disgraceful’ treatment of the city region and its workers,” saying, “Millions of workers face the prospect of poverty and deprivation after being forced into draconian Tier-3 lockdown restrictions from this weekend with utterly inadequate financial support.” They report that, “Protesters will take to the streets of Manchester on Saturday, demonstrating against the government’s ‘disgraceful’ treatment of the city region and its workers.”

    The Morning Star detail the extent of the problem as, “A swathe of the North is now subject to the government’s Tier-3 lockdown, which shuts businesses and lays off hundreds of thousands of workers. More than seven million people are affected in areas including Lancashire, Greater Manchester, Merseyside and South Yorkshire. It was also announced today that Warrington in Cheshire will move to Tier-3 from next week. Laid-off workers will receive only 67 per cent of their income because Chancellor Rishi Sunak axed the furlough scheme, which maintained wages at 80 per cent. Hardest hit will be those on the minimum wage of £8.72 an hour.” In reality the most seriously impacted will be young people who under our warped entrenched inequality are not even entitled to the amount euphemistically called the living wage. Their reduced wage and equally reduced benefit entitlement id predicated on the harsh reality that they must remain living at home with parents, but some cannot rely on this luxury.

    In a disgraceful exposure of worker exploitation the Morning Star report that, “As the new restrictions were implemented last night, government figures revealed that an estimated £3.9 billion has been fraudulently claimed by some employers who instructed furloughed staff to keep working and pocketed the payments. HMRC has urged workers to report employers if they suspect furlough payments have been claimed fraudulently.” You would have thought there was a simple way to prevent such exploitation and fraud, but inexplicably this wasn’t written into the program. In this Tory ‘business friendly’ era exposing and prosecuting such employee exploitation cases will be a very low priority. The Morning Star say, “Saturday’s Manchester demonstration in Piccadilly Gardens, organised by Manchester People’s Assembly Against Austerity, is ‘in opposition to the government’s disgraceful treatment of Greater Manchester as we are forced into Tier-3 restrictions without adequate financial support’.”

    Chris Neville, one of the organisers, told the Morning Star: “We believe that the government is failing in its duty to protect the population from coronavirus. ‘We fully support the arguments Mayor Andy Burnham has been making as he sought to protect the most vulnerable from the destitution they face after being forced to survive on two-thirds of their income. Boris Johnson and Rishi Sunak have no problem lining the pockets of greedy shareholders by paying private contractors billions of pounds to mess up our track-and-trace system. Yet we are told there is no money to help those who will struggle as a result of their workplaces being forced to close down.” He said, “The People’s Assembly demands that this government agrees to Andy Burnham’s requests for a return of the furlough scheme, as well as income-support – at 80 per cent – for the earnings of the self-employed.”

    The Morning Star warn that the, “hospitality industry is one of the sectors hardest hit by Tier-3 restrictions. Pubs, clubs and bars must close completely unless they usually serve “substantial” meals. Those that remain open have a 10pm curfew. Hospitality workers have launched a Cancel the Curfew campaign given the lack of evidence to suggest it has any effect on the spread of the virus. Beginning in Manchester it has been taken up in towns and cities nationwide, including Bristol and London. Bar worker Adam Wilson from Manchester is one of the organisers. ‘A lot of hospitality workers are in dire straits,’ he said. ‘Every city and major town has a Facebook group where we talk to each other and the campaign started from there. We look out for each other. Then it extended to putting pressure on local MPs. Within two weeks we had a question asked in the House of Commons. It’s fully nationwide.”

    The Morning Star reported that, “Speakers at Saturday’s Manchester rally from 12 noon include anti-racism campaigner Deej Malik-Johnson, student Lucy Nichols, who contracted coronavirus while confined to her Manchester hall of residence, Steve North of Unison, and Richard O’Brien of Unite. Wales also began a two-week ‘fire-break” national lockdown last night, which economists say will damage the Welsh economy to the tune of £500 million.” Ultimately there are strong indications that the tier system of regional lockdowns will not significantly lower the ‘R’ rate especially while Test and Trace remains so unreliable. This flawed policy is impoverishing already neglected northern communities for no good reason. This shambolic government continues to ignore the rising infection rates in schools where children are being used as the unwitting vectors to spread Covid to older relatives in cramped multigenerational living conditions; this is the motivation for not providing meals to children when they are not in school.

    Meanwhile in the Morning Star Article entitled, “Test and trace privatisation is ‘dangerous,’ says Arthur Scargill,” they highlight this Tory Government’s grotesque misappropriation of public funds to channelled to profiteering Corporate entities for the shambolic mishandling of this critical service. They say that, “Arthur Scargill joined the chorus of criticism against the government’s failed coronavirus test and trace system today following calls for the Tory peer overseeing the mayhem to go. The former miners’ leader presented himself as an example of the system’s failure as MPs and ministers called for Dido Harding to be given the boot. Mr Scargill told the Star that he had to self-isolate for two weeks after being in contact with a person who had tested positive. But when he asked to be tested he was told he was not entitled to a test, even though he might have been the original source of the infection.” This is far from a rare occurrence in the abysmal response to tackling the virus.

    The Morning Star say that, “Mr Scargill, who was president of the National Union of Mineworkers during the miners’ strike against pit closures of 1984-5, called the privatisation of the service ‘stupid’ and ‘dangerous.’ He said: ‘If the Chinese can test nine million people in a week in Qingdao, I have no doubt that our NHS surgeries and laboratories can test our entire population in eight weeks’.” They point out that, “The government has outsourced testing to a complex network of profiteering, mainly non-medical companies. Accountancy firm Deloitte was given the contract to set up and manage a network of 50 testing sites. Deloitte hired Serco, Sodexo, Mitie, G4S and Boots to staff and manage the sites.” Each time one clueless profit making giant subcontracts to another, often equally inept and inappropriate, private company to accomplish tasks our NHS has excelled in for decades, we lose out. The Tories have taking full advantage of this crisis to set up a profiteering gravy train for their cronies, donors and supporters.

    The Morning Star report that, “Senior Tory backbencher Sir Bernard Jenkin, an ally of PM Boris Johnson, said: ‘The immediate priority is to fill the vacuum of leadership in test and trace’ and suggested that Baroness Harding ‘could be given a well-earned break.’ Labour’s shadow mental health minister Dr Rosena Allin-Khan said that Baroness Harding’s position as head of the test, track and trace system was ‘untenable.’ But the government is resisting pressure to sack the baroness, with Northern Ireland Secretary Brandon Lewis insisting that she was doing ‘a very good job’.” This is the serial failure Dido ‘Tally-ho’ Harding we are discussing here; the same woman who presided over the massive personal data theft at disgraced phone provider ‘Talk-Talk’. But despite her calamitous track record, the PM rewarded Ms Harding with this staggering responsibility for personal Health data on our entire population and now she is safely ensconced in post she is making an absolute ball-up of the responsibility placed on her.

    The determination to keep throwing good money after bad, relying on dysfunctional centralized profiteering companies led by serial loser Dido Harding will effectively kill off whole swaths of the UK population, but that is part of Cummings warped eugenics plan: a ‘Slaughter of the Sheeple!’ We need no more proof of this ruthless Tory agenda, it’s time to stop drinking the Kool-Aid; no, the Tories have no intention of ‘levelling up’ they are “Decimating Down” with cruel avengeance. Their corrupt plundering of public funds paid for the Integrity Initiative to create defamatory propaganda targeting the opposition, but when that was not enough I believe they stole postal votes in the Covert 2019 Rigged Election. The first act was crime enough, but a full Investigation would reveal the truth and hopefully delegitimize the fabricated Tory claim to power. The wilful damage being wrought by this corrupt Tory cabal is costing lives; we urgently need to derail this jugenaught of deception before they solidify decades of Dictatorship in the UK. DO NOT MOVE ON!

    #61803 Reply
    Kim Sanders-Fisher

    Still not quite getting that Tory ‘levelling up’ agenda? That’s completely understandable, because it is just a vile, deceitful Tory PR scam. In exactly the same way that the euphemistically named “peace keepers” were sold to the American people as a benign tool of protection while remaining deadly weapons capable of horrific carnage targeting innocent civilians; so too is the fake ‘levelling up’ agenda providing cover for an insidious program of targeted social deprivation that is set to rival Dickensian era Britain! While the BBC and Mainstream Media continues to promote the totally defunct fallacy of levelling up, the harsh reality of the pervasive extreme deprivation throughout already seriously deprived areas of the UK will rumble on, totally crippling the life chances of our brilliant young people. The next generation of political leaders requires a few of those intentionally oppressed to somehow survive this onslaught and win positions of influence on order to shape our future as a more progressive and equal society.

    When I was in school there was that compulsory bottle of milk one was expected to consume despite its frigid mid winter chill as you sat in a spartanly heated classroom; it was not universally popular. What I failed to comprehend at the time was that low blood sugar significantly contributed to my muddled thinking as a dyslexic pupil who was serious disadvantage in school. Much later in life I realized that I could not afford to risk dips in my blood sugar if I wanted to pass tests and I took proactive measures seriously. Impoverished hungry school children are not stupid, but they are rendered unable to think properly due to low blood sugar as the brain requires fuel to function. This is why programs like ‘Sure Start’ providing a good breakfast, have proven so effective and why Free School Meals for disadvantaged children make such an important difference. Those forced to self isolate at home or unable to attend school due to a Covid outbreak or lockdown should not be suddenly put at increased disadvantage learning at home.

    But this is not the only disadvantage inflicted on less affluent children trying to continue their studies at home. The Government loudly announced that it would be providing Laptops to children to enable remote learning, but as always with the Tories, it is the follow through that soon disintegrates into a token gesture following their bold televised PR presentations. After a well publicized announcement that sounded far too good to be Tory, the reality was that a token number of the Laptops promised to schools were actually provided. But realizing that their PR stunt had accomplished its goal it was time to quietly scale back while they hoped no one was paying attention. In the Canary Article entitled, “The government quietly U-turned on a key pandemic promise just before going on a week’s holiday,” they highlight the regressive backpedalling on a promise made to disadvantaged school children.

    The Canary report that, “Laptops were promised for all students in years 3 to 11 who had to self-isolate and needed access to a device.” But, “By 7 June, head teachers were worried that this promise was not going to be fulfilled with the Observer reporting: most heads say they haven’t received a single device yet for disadvantaged year 10 pupils. Then, on 23 October, head teachers across the country were told that the allocation of computers for disadvantaged pupils would be cut by around 80%. This comes despite knowledge that the poorest children are much less likely than their richer peers to have a digital device to access home learning.” Of course this massive scaling back with regard to an earlier Government commitment did not get picked up in the compliant Tory dominated Media or mentioned by the BBC, disadvantaged school children are an extremely low priority. The ‘handyfloss’ is still focused on the deprivation of the last hour of pub drinking time: who cares about poor kids!

    The Canary claims that this is “Emblematic of the government pandemic response.” They say that, “Independent Sage has urged the government to stop cuts to laptops given to schools to prevent increasing educational inequality. In a statement, it said:
    This episode is emblematic of the Government pandemic response which lays duties and requirements upon sectors (such as education) but without providing the support necessary to implement them. While it is clearly desirable that students unable to attend school should be provided with remote education, this is an empty aspiration without ensuring that all pupils have the necessary resources.”
    They say, “Meanwhile, people on Twitter expressed their anger and frustration with the decision.” According to the Canary, “As of 15 October, the Department for Education (DfE) reported that 21% of state-funded schools had at least one child self-isolating at home. All schools are required to have a remote learning plan in place for these students.”

    The Canary report that, “Without sufficient provision of laptops, many disadvantaged pupils are unlikely to be able to access learning while self-isolating. This adds to fears that missing school has significantly widened the educational attainment gap between the richest and poorest children. Combined with the vote against free school meals for children, concerns have been raised that the poorest children are being left further and further behind. This comes after a spokesperson for the DfE told The Canary earlier this month: Our focus is on levelling up the opportunities available to every young person in this country, and we will do everything possible to make sure no-one is left behind as a result of the impact of the coronavirus pandemic. The lack of concern shown for the education and wellbeing of poor children has become staggering. U-turns on both decisions are imperative to stop inequality growing even further.” This is clearly more evidence of the Tory Government’s “Decimating Down” agenda!

    The damage inflicted on the working poor of this country by this ruthless and incompetent Tory Government while they continue to make the fictitious claim of ‘levelling up’ is incalculable. It is occurring at speed and by stealth with scant mention and zero criticism from their shills in the right-wing media. Beyond the shocking headlines focused on their current most serious breach of duty to the citizens of this country over free school meals for the poorest children in our nation there are the constant assaults on city councils ability to cope financially with the impact of rising infection rates caused by Tory mismanagement of the Covid crisis. Schools kids are being used as vectors to drive the virus increasing the impact on multigenerational households in cramped homes; hence the hard line on meals during the holidays. But beneath deceptive propaganda radar even programs that have helped to workers to up-skill and earn higher wages have been targeted for removal to keep the working poor permanently oppressed in Tory Britain.

    A Left Foot Forward Article entitled, “Union learning provides around £1.4bn to the economy – but the Tories want to scrap it” Kevin Rowen, Head of Organising, Services and Learning at the TUC, highlights Gavin Williamson’s latest forcible restraint on upward mobility in the Government agenda of “Decimating Down.” Not content with trying to sabotage the future of students with a marking algorithm designed to wreck the life chances of bright pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds he has unleashed an equally incomprehensible restraint on learning. Left Foot Forward say of Union Learning that, “It boosts jobs, wages and productivity but Gavin Williamson wants it gone,” Why? It must be that dangerously disruptive word ‘Union’ that unleashed the Education Sectary’s mental tarantula! But beyond the Tory abhorrence of Union solidarity is the overall agenda of dumming down the working poor to keep them ignorant and slavishly compliant with the increased levels of exploitation that lie ahead.

    In the Left Foot Forward article Rowen identifies and presents the case of one typical positive example of the successful and well established Union Learning program. He says, “Jodie works at Tesco. After recently meeting a union learning rep, Sue, at a Checkout Learning Day, and asking about courses that might help her support her children with their homework, Jodie started some courses. She did the National Numeracy Challenge and Get Online via Usdaw courses, quickly catching the learning bug. Sue then encouraged Jodie to take a level 2 customer service course. Her confidence grew and soon she was embarking on a level 2 apprenticeship in IT, which helped her land a new job as admin clerk. The store manager said her commitment to raising her skills made her an excellent choice. All of Jodie’s opportunities were made possible through the Union Learning Fund, which supported 200,000 learners last year. Since its launch in 1998, it has supported a total of 2.5 million learners.”

    Despite this very obvious resounding success with the program, Rowen reports that, “earlier this month, Education Secretary Gavin Williamson said he will scrap the £12 million annual fund at the end of the current funding year (March 2021). The TUC was stunned to receive this news. The Union Learning Fund is achieving its targets while also being supported by employers. It provides an estimated net contribution to the economy of more than £1.4 billion by boosting jobs, wages and productivity. From basic skills and helping people learn English, to retraining for the jobs of the future, union learning transforms lives. And it has received glowing endorsements from a series of independent evaluations.” So why would a Tory Government whose loud public proclamation of wanting to ‘level up’ and create a more equal society not support this program? Why after the serious challenge of huge redundancies, businesses going under and people needing to re-skill not invest in a well established program like this?

    The Tory Government are outright lying to the British people and their real agenda is “Decimating Down” to reduce the working poor in this country to helpless slave labourers with no rights, working zero hours contracts and subsisting on pittance wages. Just the word ‘Union’ deeply unsettles the Tories as it implies workers banding together in solidarity to demand safe working conditions, fair wages and basic benefits for regular hours worked. Unions limit the potential for rampant Corporate exploitation of the entire workforce which in turn might reduce the obscene profits expected by the wealthy elite. The intentional dumming-down of minimum wage earners is imperative to keeping profit margins as high as possible; the price in human misery is totally acceptable to a Tory!

    Rowen list the known, “Benefits of the Union Learning Fund
    Skills growth
    • 68% of union learners with no previous qualifications got a qualification.
    • 47% with entry or level 1 qualifications got a higher qualification.
    • 80% said they gained skills that could transfer to a new job.

    Employer benefits
    • 53% of employers at union learning workplaces saw an increase in employees gaining qualifications.
    • 77% said that union learning had a positive effect on their workplaces.
    • 68% said unions could reach and inspire reluctant learners to engage in training.

    Value for money. For every £1 spent on the Union Learning Fund:
    • Workers gain £7.60 through better pay.
    • Employers gain £4.70 through higher productivity.
    • The Exchequer gains £3.57 from welfare savings and revenue gains.
    • Employers are stunned at the plans to scrap the fund too. They think union learning is ‘brilliant’”

    On a hopeful note, Rowen reports that employers are “Supporting the Fund,” the above benefits are tangible. They say, “That’s why several major employers are backing us today as we launch our #SaveUnionLearning campaign. Tesco, Heathrow, Tata Steel, Hinkley Point C and Arla Foods are among those signed up already, and we expect more to follow.” They quote industry leaders who have commented, “’It’s as disappointing as it is perplexing,’ said Paula Stannett, Heathrow Airport’s Chief People Officer. ‘The unprecedented impact that this pandemic is having on jobs across the UK means there has never been a more critical time to invest in upskilling. We urge the Government to rethink its decision.’ Tata Steel see union learning as a fantastic additional resource. HR Director Chris Jaques said: ‘This brilliant initiative allows us to raise the capability of our workforce. It makes us a more effective and productive organisation. The loss of the fund would certainly be detrimental.”

    According to Rowen, “SaveUnionLearning is also backed by the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD) and other lifelong learning experts, including the Workers Educational Association and the Learning and Work Institute. CIPD Chief Executive, Peter Cheese, credits union learning with switching people on to learning who might not have done so otherwise. ‘The Union Learning Fund has demonstrated its success at reaching organisations and individuals who would not otherwise have engaged in learning,’ he explained. ‘It has never been more important to ensure that we are investing in the skills of our workforce. This fund should continue to be supported to play its part in this vital agenda’.”

    Rowen reports that, “So far, the only explanation given for the cut by the Department for Education is their wish to consolidate learning through further education. But this fails to appreciate the unique role it plays – especially with the potential learners who are never going to research or sign up for courses without support and encouragement. News of the cut comes at the time when participation in learning and skills continues to fall to an all-time low. Only union learning has been able to reach workers that so evidently need help right now to upskill and retrain. Union learning reps are trusted workmates.” That is without doubt the Tory Government’s primary reason for sabotaging the scheme as they say, “it’s this trust that make it the Heineken of adult learning – it gets to people other approaches cannot reach.”

    Rowen stresses the strong positive drive behind keeping the scheme in place, “We want to help more people understand why it is unique, why it is vital to ‘building back better’ after the pandemic, and why it must be central to the Prime Minister’s recent promise of a Lifetime Skills Guarantee. To do this, we will be putting learners and learning reps at the heart of our campaign. It’s hard not to be moved by the transformation stories they tell about what it has done for them.” Author of this piece, Kevin Rowan says, “You can sign the #SaveUnionLearn petition here and support the campaign on social media. You are encouraged to share you’re story if you’re a union learner.” Dean Dixon’s Petition is to the attention of: Gavin Williamson, Secretary of State for Education calling on him to “Reverse the cuts to union learning, saying, The government’s plans to cut the Union Learning Fund in England means hundreds of thousands of workers will miss out on skills and training.”

    Dixon appeals for us to, Sign the Petition calling on the government to reverse cuts to union learning and ensure working people can access education and skills training.” He elaborates under the heading, “Why is this important?” In a heartfelt personal endorsement he says, “I saw first-hand the difference union learning made for hundreds of my workmates and friends. So when I heard the news that the government planned to cut the Union Learning Fund, I was devastated. I thought of everyone I’d supported as a union learning rep and what they would have missed out on without this programme. I thought of the workers getting our country through this crisis, who deserve an opportunity to access education and learn new skills in the workplace. It’s impossible to list all of the benefits of union learning I’ve seen, but I can honestly say it’s changed lives.”

    In outlining another important aspect of the program Dixon says, “Our training around mental health helped normalise talking about it at work. People who missed out at school learned English and maths in union learning courses, skills they’ll have for life.” He says that, ‘those who came to learning centres and engaged in courses came back over and over again, earning apprenticeships and higher qualifications.’ He further adds that, ‘independent reviews have consistently found union learning to be effective and transformational for the workers who take part, their families, and communities’ and insists that, ‘The government must reverse its decision immediately’.” We must attack the Government over the sheer hypocrisy and brass neck of Tory Ministers when it comes to proven strategies that are genuinely doing a fine job of helping to ‘level up’ and re-skill the many people who have been forced into unemployment through no fault of their own due to Covid 19: we must embarrass the Tories into another U-turn on this issue.

    Sadly “Build Back Better” is just another one of Boris Johnson’s shallow sloganeering ploys to dupe the British people into thinking we are “all in this together” when in reality the Tories are milking the Covid cash cow dry and exploiting the crisis to plunder public finances hand over fist. We must disrupt the Tory propaganda by challenging their statements, demanding that their claims must amount to more than empty Tory promises. We have to change the narrative by debunking the ‘levelling up’ scam as a deceitful lie and exposing the truth of the underlying “Decimating Down” agenda. We must demand accountability for the eye-watering sums of money being squandered including the public funds used to pay a charity to create defamatory propaganda targeting the Labour Party. Even without a full Investigation into the Covert 2019 Rigged Election such blatant corruption is sufficient to remove this Tory Government from office. This corruption has still not been dealt with, but we cannot give up or the Tories will drag us all under. DO NOT MOVE ON!

    #61837 Reply
    Kim Sanders-Fisher

    Fantisemitism is about to rear its ugly head with the imminent publication of the controversial EHRC Report. We already know that the EHRC Report is likely to be deeply biased and untruthful because one of those who stands falsely accused, Chris Williamson, was so incenses by the content that he has filed for a Judicial Review! Thankfully Craig Murray submitted the entire unredacted Labour Rebuttal Report into evidence that must be considered by EHRC. With damning documentation of internal sabotage by the anti-Corbyn faction of the Labour Party clearly apparent when it was leaked to the media the Captain of Capitulation, Keir Starmer, refused to submit it to EHRC and focused an internal inquiry not on the obvious misconduct of factional staff, but on finding out who had commissioned the report and who had leaked the document to the press. Starmer’s cowardly hope that this crucial piece of evidence requested by EHRC would be discredited, buried and forgotten may have been foiled by our intrepid champion of justice.

    Today I was just relieved not to feel compelled to watch Keir Starmer’s pathetic whining at Prime Minister’s Questions, where he always manages to obsess over just one oblique aspect of the most vital scrutiny question of the day. His approach, that is neither succinct nor ‘forensic,’ consistently fails to hold the most abysmal and corrupt PM in UK history to account and frequently functions as an invitation for Boris Johnson to embark on a Party political PR stunt where he reels off false statistics, spews blatant lies and announces more shallow promises of future equality and undeliverable prosperity after Brexit. Due to an archaic regulation of behaviour in the House of Commons MPs are not allowed to accuse another member of lying in the Chamber. Johnson has taken full advantage of this perverse freedom to be repeatedly, deliberately and outrageously untruthful in televised debates like PMQs, knowing that he cannot be directly challenged as a pathological liar! It’s time this quaint nicety was abolished to provide accountability.

    While it is often left to backbench opposition MPs to ask truly vital questions, they don’t take centre stage and fervent challenges are interspersed with non-questions as Tory MPs seek to curry favour by stroking’ Johnson with unwarranted complements and encouragement beginning with “does the PM agree with me…” We were spared the outrage of wading through yet another futile sparing match between point scoring fantasists at PMQs. I am sure Sir Keir Starmer will take the opportunity next week to indulge in inappropriate grovelling to thoroughly bed-in the concept of fantisemitism that was miraculously vanquished instantly as soon as he took over the Labour Leadership… As destructive centrist Labour MPs kowtow to emboldened Jewish Lobby groups who will seize this opportunity to overegg the disgrace they have falsely claimed Corbyn is responsible for; they will try to demand scalps, primarily Jeremy’s removal from the Labour Party. In his purge of Labour Left, Starmer could willingly capitulate to such demands.

    To offer a true perspective of the deception that has shrouded the Labour Party in the shame of false contrition for the entirety of Corbyn’s time as Labour Leader I offer this illustrative example. What if you had a dear friend or family member who had endured months of debilitating treatment for cancer and they appeared to be in remission. On a visit to their specialist they are told that they are more than 99% cancer free, but instead of telling you this fantastic news they report that they are now riddled with cancer! That is the honest equivalent of the deception being peddled in the Mainstream Media and wholeheartedly endorsed as fact by our now thoroughly corrupt right-biased BBC. Independent investigations into the incidence of Anti-Semitism in all political parties have determined that within the Labour membership it represents a miniscule 0.1% which would mean that the largest Socialist Party in Europe with over 500,000 members is not ‘institutionally Anti-Semitic’ or ‘riddled’ with ‘hard-Left’ Anti-Semites, but instead 99.9% Anti-Semitism free. This is a well documented fact that has remained hidden from the public, but which EHRC cannot just ignore.

    The healing of this gaping wound that helped deprive the UK of a progressive Socialist Government is long overdue, but as heavily biased as the EHRC is now recognized to be, seriously stacked in favour of demonizing Labour, they will have to ignore a significant amount of hard evidence in Labours’ defence to conclude that Labour has a major problem with anti-Semitism. Aside from the factual statistics clearly demonstrating that anti-Semitism, as has always been the case, is more prevalent on the far-right and almost non-existent among all progressive left leaning political parties there is that internal Labour Report showing documented evidence of sabotage from within the Labour Party and there is other evidence of serious bias and smears. EHRC should question why an internal review in response to their own request for evidence, was suppressed by the incoming Labour Leader and had to be submitted by a third party? The Campaign Against Anti-Semitism, (CAA) demand for EHRC to investigate Labour, a distinctly partisan attack from Gideon Falter, lacks any credibility or integrity as they are under investigation by the Charity Commission.

    Beyond the CAA’s naked attempt to falsely discredit Labour to protect the Zionist agenda there is the well documented history of deliberately fabricated propaganda from other quarters that provides strong evidence EHRC would be unwise to ignore. Towards the end of 2018 a story broke that then Labour Shadow Foreign Secretary Emily Thornberry demanded answers to. The World Socialist Web Site (WSWS) Article entitled “UK government’s role in anti-Corbyn campaign exposed,” was a scandal that in a properly functioning democracy should have brought down the Government, but, like so many other attempts to restore justice to UK politics, it failed and was conveniently forgotten by the Media in time for the Covert 2019 Rigged Election a year later. WSWS reported that, “The Integrity Initiative (II), funded by the UK, US governments and NATO, played a central role in efforts to discredit and remove Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn.”

    WSWS revealed that, “Ostensibly based in a former mill in Fife, Scotland, the Integrity Initiative has all the hallmarks of a covert MI5/MI6 intelligence black ops. It was launched in 2015 by the Institute of Statecraft (IoS), a supposedly ‘independent’ think tank and charity. But after first being granted £296,500 in 2017-18 by the Foreign Office, this financial year the II will receive nearly seven times that amount—£1,961,000. The II also receives hundreds of thousands of pounds from NATO. One of its founder funders was Facebook. Last week, the CyberGuerilla.org web site published documents made available by the Anonymous group, revealing some of the misinformation operations carried out by the IoS/II, based around circulating fake news. The Anonymous leak disrupted plans by the II to keep the authors of their dirty work unknown to the public.”

    WSWS reported that, “The II’s website states, ‘We are a network of people and organizations from across Europe dedicated to revealing and combating propaganda and disinformation. Our broader aim is also to educate on how to spot disinformation and verify sources. This kind of work attracts the extremely hostile and aggressive attention of disinformation actors, like the Kremlin and its various proxies, so we hope you understand that our members mostly prefer to remain anonymous.’ Leading figures at the IoS utilise ‘clusters’ of politicians, high-ranking military officials, academics and journalists in countries around the world, ensuring that British imperialism’s aims are reinforced and justified with a constant barrage of propaganda, including influencing social media discussion—with the most obvious target being Russia.” When the long buried Russia Report was finally published it still demonstrated that the Government considered II a trusted source of information despite their highly dubious track record!

    Just how politically manipulative the so called ‘Charity’ were is evident from the WSWS reporting where they claim that, “In Spain, the II encouraged pliant journalists to write hatchet pieces—to prevent the nomination of a Spanish official to Director of National Security, one of Spain’s top advisory roles. It operates clusters from UK Embassies and High Commissions in nine European countries—France, Greece, Germany, Italy, Lithuania, Netherlands, Norway, Serbia and Spain. It also plans clusters in Austria, Bulgaria, Canada, Estonia, Georgia, Latvia, Malta, Moldova, Montenegro, Poland and Portugal. The latest leaked documents point to a massive operation aimed at subverting politics in the UK, with the leader of Her Majesty’s Opposition a main target.” Where the corrupt influence of the Tory Party is strongly implicated is demonstrated in the multitude of direct connections and the fact that this Tory Government used public funds paying to support this organization in their corrupt political activities both here and overseas!

    WSWS said that, “An investigation by Daily Record/Sunday Mail revealed that the Twitter account of the II was used to spread lies and disinformation about Corbyn and his inner circle. This includes retweeting links to articles, including by two journalists from The Times—Edward Lucas, who is one of 22 individuals named as part of the II’s UK cluster’s ‘Inner Core’ assigned to monitor Russia, and Mark Edmonds, the associate editor of the Sunday Times magazine.” They claimed that, “The II’s role in the anti-Corbyn campaign confirms the insistence of the Socialist Equality Party and the World Socialist Web Site on the involvement of the highest echelons of the state in the UK, US and Israel in slandering the Labour leader as a dupe of the Eastern European intelligence agencies, an anti-Semite and threat to national security. This was aimed at curtailing the development of a leftward movement among workers and youth that found initial expression in support for Corbyn.”

    According to WSWS, “The Institute of Statecraft has close ties to Britain’s military and intelligence agencies. It’s senior manager, Chris Donnelly, was a reserve officer in the British Army Intelligence Corps and previously headed the British Army’s Soviet Studies Research Centre at Sandhurst. The Sunday Mail is in possession of documents that ‘suggest he was appointed an ‘Honorary Colonel in Military Intelligence’ in 2015—the year the Integrity Initiative was formed.’ The Institute of Statecraft’s spokesman, Stephen Dalziel, was a leading figure at the BBC’s World Service, having spent 16 years there from 1988. But before this, according to an online biography, he ‘joined the Soviet Studies Research Centre at the Royal Military Academy, Sandhurst. Using unclassified primary Soviet sources, the Centre worked closely with the Armed Forces to give an accurate picture of the situation in the Soviet Armed Forces by way of lectures and research papers … [and Dalziel] continued to travel to the USSR, as well as making frequent visits to Berlin—West and East’.”

    WSWS reported that, “The document detailing the UK ‘cluster’ of II’s operation lists 108 individuals, including personnel from the Foreign Office, Ministry of Defence, the Henry Jackson Society, Royal United Services Institute, the Demos think tank, leading Blairite Labour MP Ben Bradshaw, as well as parliamentary staff at the Defence Committee, David Nicholas and Eleanor Scarnell. The names of at least nine journalists include four from Rupert Murdoch’s Times/Sunday Times, which has played a central role in the anti-Corbyn smear campaign—Deborah Haynes, David Aaronovitch, Dominic Kennedy and Edward Lucas. Also named is leading Guardian columnist and leader writer, Natalie Nougayrede, who was previously the executive editor and managing editor of French daily Le Monde. The other journalists named are the BBC’s Jonathan Marcus, Neil Buckley of the Financial Times and a freelancer, Bruce Jones.”

    WSWS say that, “In its article, the Sunday Mail notes that II tweeted an excerpt from an article stating, ‘Mr Corbyn was a ‘useful idiot’, in the phrase apocryphally attributed to Lenin. His open, visceral anti-westernism helped the Kremlin cause, as surely as if he had been secretly peddling Westminster tittle-tattle for money…’ This refers to a comment headlined, ‘Jeremy Corbyn’s sickening support of Soviet empire,’ originally published on February 22 in the Times by II cluster member Edward Lucas. Lucas is named in the UK Cluster document as a member of the ‘Inner Core—Russia’ team, along with US neo-con journalist Anne Applebaum. II also retweeted excepts from four other anti-Corbyn articles. One of these from a blogger, Connor P, was headlined, ‘Novichok for the Soul. Jeremy Corbyn and the murder of the Russian spy’ and was retweeted by Blairite Guardian journalist and leading anti-Corbyn fanatic, Nick Cohen.”

    Again referring to the Skripal False Flag incident, the WSWS reported back in December 2018 that, “The last attack on Corbyn retweeted by the II was less than three months ago, on September 20, just three days before the opening of Labour’s annual conference. It was an article published by politics.co.uk and headlined, ‘Skripal poisoning: It’s time for the Corbyn left to confront its Putin problem.’ Corbyn’s main adviser and director of communications, Seamus Milne, was also singled out for attack by II, which retweeted another Times article, by Mark Edmonds. In an extensive profile of Milne, it cited a statement from Conservative MP Bob Seely, described as a ‘Russia expert and member of the foreign-affairs select committee.’ Seely said Milne is ‘not a ‘spy’… That would be … beneath him. But what he has done, wittingly or unwittingly, is to work with the Kremlin’s agenda against the interests of western liberal democracies. I have little doubt they see him as an ally against the UK, the US, Nato’.”

    In describing the litany of lies back in 2018 WSWS stated that, “The Murdoch empire has spent much of this year organising a series of hatchet jobs on Corbyn. Earlier this year, as Lucas was publishing his article, Murdoch’s Sun made scurrilous claims that Corbyn was a paid informer for the Czech secret service in the 1980s as it editorialised that Corbyn ‘cannot be allowed the keys to No 10.’ In September, the Times regurgitated long discredited assertions that former left Labour leader Michael Foot was a Kremlin agent. It once again referred to Lucas’ statement that Corbyn and others on the left of the Labour Party historically were ‘useful idiots’ and, in a clear reference to Corbyn, said the claim that Foot was paid by Moscow had ‘topicality as well as historical significance’.” The disinformation should have ended there and then, but the continuous stream of propaganda persisted unabated right up to the Covert 2019 Rigged Election and beyond. If EHRC ignore this evidence it will be a truly shocking breach of their public duty that will not survive the scrutiny of a Judicial Review.

    Chris Williamson is determined to hold EHRC to account if they fail to act with integrity to quash these false allegations discrediting the Labour Party and a growing number of its most outspoken Left wing supporters. Starmer tried to suppress evidence requested by EHRC, attempting to obscure an obvious conspiracy of sabotage despite credible documentation: not a good look! He drove many members away from the party in disgust with his deeply flawed decision to squander membership dues; ignoring the advice of Labour’s Legal team to reward John Ware’s ‘poison dart blowers’ for committing perjury! If the brazen deceit of Keir Starmer is not uncovered by EHRC it will be completely exposed in any subsequent Judicial Review; hopefully his days are numbered and he will be forced to step down in disgrace. His appalling record of injustice, cover-up and misogynistic rulings as well as his racist policy decisions while Head of Public Prosecutions for the Crown Prosecution Service should have barred him from running for the Labour Leadership.

    Starmer has dug himself into a deep hole with his lies and his cowardly capitulation, but his unjustified payment to Ware might provide one last gasp of fake credibility for Ware and his cohorts. However, if EHRC have the brass neck to support these false allegations they must know they will be in really deep trouble when this issue is decided on solid evidence in a Court of law at Judicial Review. Hopefully this SLAPP scam will expose the thoroughly corrupt system of Government appointed stooges installed within agencies missguidedly trusted to provide full accountability. It could see multiple Tory Government stacked agencies in serious trouble as the public finally wise up to this Conservative con trick.

    I know that Williamson has already filed his case for Judicial Review and I sincerely doubt he will back down. Now that Jeremy Corbyn has such overwhelming funding support for legal action many people are hoping he will countersue John Ware. This is really important because it could prove that the fake Whistleblowers committed perjury with their statements to the Court in their SLAPP Suit against Labour, for which they could then face jail time! This would create a significant deterrent for those seeking a quick risk-free payout by filling a SLAPP suit in future. These suits are against the public interest and they gag important investigative journalism. The fantisemitism lies were used to validate the ‘borrowed votes’ lie to lend desperately needed legitimacy to the unfathomable Tory ‘landslide victory’ scam in the Covert 2019 Rigged Election. It was all a big fat lie; we need to question more and demand a full Investigation of the unbelievable result that never made any sense. We must demand proper accountability for this corruption and remove the Tory Party from office ASAP! DO NOT MOVE ON!

    #61872 Reply
    Kim Sanders-Fisher

    Many are in a state of shock tonight after hearing the news of Corbyn’s suspension from the Labour Party, but it will not mark the end of foreign intervention in the manipulation of UK politics if we do not take extreme action to combat this Zionist intervention. The CAA Campaign Against Antisemitism are now attacking a long list of progressive Left MPs they now want Starmer to remove! Bracing for the smear onslaught ahead, yesterday the Skwawkbox Article entitled, “Exclusive: Corbyn’s chief of staff ‘sets record straight’ on Labour, antisemitism and EHRC – the FULL version, publishes the facts according to Karie Murphy.” They say that, “The Guardian has published an article by Jeremy Corbyn’s former chief of staff, Karie Murphy, along with a separate piece by its chief political correspondent Jessica Elgot. Below is Murphy’s full article, which may differ from the paper’s edited version.” Without repeating the content I have looked at all three articles and the apologist commentary of Jon Ainsworth in a forth Guardian piece.

    In the Skwawkbox Murphy states that, “In the coming weeks, we can expect to hear more about the handling of antisemitism complaints in the Labour Party. That’s because the investigation by the Equality and Human Rights Commission, launched last year, is due to be published. Dealing with the EHRC, and getting input into the investigation process, has not always been easy. So, as someone who was at the centre of dealing with these issues, in parliament and Labour HQ, I want to set the record straight. Under Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership, antisemites were removed from the Labour Party more quickly, transparently and effectively than ever before. As his former chief of staff, I’m proud of that record. It wasn’t easy to deliver – not because Jeremy and our team weren’t absolutely committed to protecting Jewish members and communities. Far from it. Every action we took was aimed at creating a process that got antisemites out of the Labour Party swiftly and fairly.”

    Murphy says that, “In February 2016, I joined Corbyn’s office and soon afterwards became his chief of staff. Frankly, the party machine was dysfunctional. The open civil war against the new leadership is well documented. But there was a deeper problem, at least as it related to proper processes for complaints and discrimination: there weren’t any. Local parties often languished in suspended animation, banned from meeting or holding votes for years on end, without any way to restart members’ democracy. What common factor did these local parties usually have? Large minority ethnic memberships. The individual complaints system was a mess, with the unit meant to oversee it operating more often as a factional weapon than anything approaching a fair and rigorous process.”

    Murphy reports that, “This ugly backdrop informed the first flare-up of the antisemitism controversy in the Labour Party as a major media story. That took place in April 2016, when old Facebook comments by the Labour MP Naz Shah and pro-Corbyn activist Jackie Walker surfaced, along with Ken Livingstone’s thoroughly offensive attempted defence of Shah’s former online activity. Action was taken immediately and Naz worked hard to rebuild relations with the Jewish community. ‘From an audit of over 300 antisemitism complaints received by the party [before Jennie Formby became general secretary], only 34 had been investigated, and of them only 10 were suspended at the time.’ Jeremy made strong public statements condemning antisemitism and demanded action be taken in the party. He also commissioned a report from the leading human rights lawyer Shami Chakrabarti. The Board of Deputies of British Jews called for her recommendations to be implemented in a ‘rigorous and swift’ manner.”

    According to Murphy, “despite assurances from the party HQ and the then General Secretary Iain McNicol, they weren’t, and the system continued not to function. The figures are stark. From an audit of over 300 antisemitism complaints received by the party from November 2016 to February 2018, only 34 had been investigated, and of them only 10 were suspended at the time. This shocking failure of basic processes only began to be fully uncovered after Jennie Formby became General Secretary in March 2018. ‘Whenever we were asked for our view, we almost always suggested stronger and swifter action. In 2019, I felt we were getting on top of the process problems in the party. The results are clear. In 2017, 28 cases brought to the National Executive Committee led to just one expulsion, while in 2019 274 cases led to 45, a more than four-fold increase in expulsions per case. We had a weekly, cross-departmental antisemitism working group of party officials, forcing through the necessary changes to the system.”

    Murphy claims, “We didn’t deal with individual cases at the leadership level – and nor should we have done – but we did act to improve the overall process. Apart from one brief period in early 2018 between Iain McNicol leaving and Jennie Formby taking over, we were only consulted on cases involving MPs or other elected leaders, as has always been the case in the Labour Party with all types of complaints. And whenever we were asked for our view, we almost always suggested stronger and swifter action. ‘There has been an extremely successful campaign to obscure the facts.’ Throughout the whole period, Jeremy asked me as his chief of staff to improve the process, get antisemites out of our party and begin to rebuild trust with Jewish communities. Jeremy is an anti-racist in every cell in his body and he wanted robust action following due process.”

    Murphy understands that, “Many readers will find this all surprising given the dominant media narrative about antisemitism in the Labour Party, but it is the truth. While many victims of antisemitism and their allies rightly demanded action from the party, there has been an extremely successful campaign to obscure the facts. That was primarily driven by political opposition to Jeremy Corbyn’s socialist, internationalist politics. Last summer’s BBC Panorama programme about Labour and antisemitism, based on testimonies from some of those responsible for the system that only investigated 10% of antisemitism complaints from November 2016 to February 2018, claimed that there was political meddling from Corbyn’s team to protect antisemites. There wasn’t.”

    Murphy States that, “Between McNicol leaving and Jennie Formby taking over as general secretary, those running the governance and legal unit began asking Corbyn’s team for their views on individual cases. Not only did we not ask for this oversight of individual cases, I thought it was a factional trap and I put a stop to it.” Speaking out for the first time she said, “I’m not speaking out for the first time to run away from the fact that antisemitism reared its head among a small minority in the Labour Party. It did. It was wrong and the party as a whole was slow to deal with it effectively. That failure, combined with a relentless and highly politicised media campaign had a serious impact: it hurt Jewish people and disturbed and confused many in our movement. Could more have been done earlier? Yes, of course. But what was done unquestionably made it easier and swifter to remove antisemites from the Party.”

    Murphy concludes by offering an expectation of the new Labour Party Leader, despite the fact that he appears determined to weaponize anti-Semitism to discredit his high principled predecessor. She says, “I hope Keir Starmer and his team builds on the hugely improved system we instituted and uses the space afforded to him by the dialing down of the politicised media campaign on this issue to rebuild relations and trust with Jewish communities. It deeply saddens me that we were unable to do so. But it wasn’t for want of trying, let alone any toleration for antisemitism.” It is important to understand that ‘Under New Leadership’ it would not have been possible to get what was falsely portrayed as a massive problem completely under control the second Corbyn stepped down. The robust mechanisms that Corbyn’s team put in place are continuing to eradicate the small number of cases within the extensive Labour Party membership, but Keir Starmer is now trying to take full credit while deceitfully continuing t demonize his predecessor.

    In the Guardian Article entitled, “Ex-Corbyn aide Karie Murphy says she is proud of record on antisemitism,” they report, “Murphy says she wants to set record straight, but Jewish group dismisses her claims as smearing. Jeremy Corbyn’s former chief of staff has said she is proud of Labour’s record on antisemitism, days before the equalities watchdog is expected to publish its report on the issue.” As if it were heresy, they describe Karie Murphy as, “one of Corbyn’s fiercely protective inner circle, whom several former party staffers have accused of meddling in antisemitism cases, said she had been moved to speak out ‘for the first time … [to] set the record straight,’ about the party’s handling of cases, claiming that it improved during Corbyn’s tenure.” They quote Murphy, “Under Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership, antisemites were removed from the Labour party more quickly, transparently and effectively than ever before. As his former chief of staff, I’m proud of that record,” she has written in a piece for the Guardian.

    The Guardian report that, “The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) is expected to publish its long-awaited report on Labour this week. It launched the review after whistleblowers alleged that the party was institutionally antisemitic in its handling of complaints and within local party structures. Any key figures who are criticised in the report, who could include Murphy, are likely to have been given some limited sight of its findings in advance. Murphy said there had been an ‘extremely successful campaign to obscure the facts’ about how the party handled complaints, claiming it was ‘primarily driven by political opposition to Jeremy Corbyn’s socialist, internationalist politics’ and procedural failings.”

    The Guardian quote Murphy as saying, “I’m not speaking out for the first time to dismiss the fact that antisemitism reared its head among a small minority in the Labour party. It did. It was wrong and the party as a whole was slow to deal with it effectively.” But they say that, “in comments that were fiercely opposed by the Jewish Labour Movement (JLM), Murphy said a ‘relentless and highly politicised media campaign’ was also to blame. It ‘hurt Jewish people and disturbed and confused many in our movement,” Murphy had said. “Could more have been done earlier? Yes, of course. But what was done – including changes to the party’s rules and instituting detailed guidance on antisemitism for an expanded complaints team – unquestionably made it easier and swifter to remove antisemites from the party.” She added that she was “’deeply sad; that relations with the Jewish community were at such a low ebb during Corbyn’s tenure. ‘But it wasn’t for want of trying, let alone because of any tolerance of antisemitism’.”

    The Guardian rushed to the unwarranted defence of John Ware’s so called, “Whistleblowers,” who they said, “worked in Labour’s governance and legal unit, several of whom went public to speak to the BBC Panorama programme, have previously said senior party staff fatally undermined their attempts to tackle antisemitism, alleging consistent interference in complaints, which Murphy denies. Several staff described experiencing breakdowns as a result of the atmosphere.” Sadly the disgusting ‘Fake News’ of the Panorama hatchet job was not challenged in Court as the Labour Legal team had recommended, but reinforced and endorsed by Keir Starmer’s shocking cowardly capitulation. To the horror of huge swaths of the Labour membership Starmer rewarded those who had committed perjury in their statements to the Court by awarding them a substantial out-of-Court settlement paid for by Labour Membership dues. The extent of this perjury could be exposed by EHRC or by the Williamsons Judicial Review of EHRC.

    The Guardian reported that, “Murphy cited an audit of more than 300 antisemitism complaints received by the party from November 2016 to February 2018, which found that only 34 had been investigated.” They say, “She alleged that changes brought about by Jennie Formby as general secretary – Formby has since left the role – led to a fourfold increase in expulsions per case. Murphy said she and other staff members in the Labour leader’s office did not meddle in cases involving party members, saying she saw it as ‘a factional trap’ when she was asked for advice – a claim strongly disputed by former staff members, who have claimed they were put under inappropriate pressure in prominent cases.”

    But the Guardian gave the final judgement to the rabidly anti-Corbyn Jewish Labour Movement. They reported that, “Mike Katz, chair of the JLM, said Murphy’s claims were a smear of Jewish members. ‘JLM referred Labour to the EHRC because our efforts to engage constructively with the party from 2015 onwards had been rebuffed constantly and our members faced continued discrimination, harassment and victimisation’,” According to Katz, “At no point was there genuine remorse, improvements to the system, or any real progress in the number of cases handled or outcomes. Their only success on antisemitism was the rigour with which they protected their political allies, downplayed the issue and gaslit those who spoke up against it. Smearing the pain of our members and the wider Jewish community as part of a ‘highly politicised media campaign’ is shameful.” It would be inappropriate to show remorse for alleged inaction over a serious grievance that was deliberately blown out of all proportion for political reasons.

    In another guilty until proven innocent take on the as yet unpublished EHRC Report the Guardian Article entitled, “Antisemitism inquiry is Labour’s most shameful moment, says senior MP,” they have relied on the familiar tactic of getting a compliant Labour Centrist to admit guilt over unproven accusations. This was the exact same tactic used to convince the country that the Tories had won a ‘landslide victory’ in the Covert2019 Rigged Election; instead of getting Johnson to explain his unfathomable win they forced Labour MPs to endorse the validity of their fabricated defeat! In this case they chose Jonathan Ashworth whose former wife, Emilie Oldknow, was mired hip deep in the conspiracy to sabotage Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership. They just say, “Jonathan Ashworth’s comments come day before publication of EHRC report on issue. An investigation by the equality watchdog into antisemitism in the Labour party is the most shameful moment in the party’s history, a leading frontbench Labour MP has said.”

    The Guardian report that, “The Equality and Human Rights Commission’s report is due to be published on Thursday after an 18-month investigation into claims of anti-Jewish racism in the party during Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership. Asked if the investigation was the most shameful moment in the party’s history, Jonathan Ashworth, the shadow health secretary, agreed that ‘it probably was, yes’. Speaking on Times Radio on Wednesday morning, Ashworth said: ‘A lot of this was about the fact that there was just a refusal to acknowledge the issue. I obviously don’t know what’s in the report, because it’s confidential, but that was a shameful period in our history, and we have to be clear that we are never going back to that, and we will do everything we can to repair relations with the Jewish community who are understandably and quite rightly hurt by the Labour party’s failure to deal with this in recent years’.”

    The Guardian report that, “The EHRC launched the review after whistleblowers alleged that the party was institutionally antisemitic in its handling of complaints and within local party structures. The referral came from a number of Jewish groups including the Campaign Against Antisemitism and the Jewish Labour Movement.” Both lobby groups were firmly committed to Corbyn’s removal due to his support for the Palestinian cause. They say, “Key allies of Corbyn are expected to launch a staunch defence of their record when the report is published. Karie Murphy, Corbyn’s former chief of staff, whom several former party staffers have accused of meddling in antisemitism cases, has said the handling of antisemitism disciplinary cases improved during Corbyn’s tenure. ‘Under Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership, antisemites were removed from the Labour party more quickly, transparently and effectively than ever before. As his former chief of staff, I’m proud of that record,’ she wrote in a piece for the Guardian on Monday.”

    The Guardian feature the comments of hateful arch Zionist, “Gideon Falter,” saying that, “the chief executive of Campaign Against Antisemitism, said there must be consequences for Labour staffers if the report is highly critical.” H expresses his determination to continue the destructive work of his lobbying group by saying that, “’The party must be forever changed after this episode so this can never happen again,’ he said. “Those responsible remain in the party and must be held to account if Sir Keir Starmer is to tear antisemitism ‘out by its roots’, as he has promised. The EHRC’s report is a pivotal moment in this corrective process, which is why we called in the EHRC and were the originating complainant in its investigation.” Falter is convinced that under Starmer’s weak and compliant leadership he can force the expulsion of Corbyn and all other champions of the Palestinian cause. Falter claimed that, “The EHRC has considered a great deal of evidence from us and we will have more to say when the report is published.”

    Gideon Falter and the so called Charity ‘Campaign Against Antisemitism’ are a poorly disguised front for a Zionist Lobby group dedicated to eliminating all criticism of Israel’s ongoing cruel, blatantly racist oppression of the Palestinian people. They have been reported to the Charity Commission for their political bias targeting the Labour Party so they approached the EHRC with a serious axe to grind. Now CAA are demanding that their compliant stooge Starmer launch investigations into dozens of the progressive Labour MPs on spurious grounds of fantisemitism, a move that will effectively gut the Labour Party. We cannot allow UK politics to be dictated by the Israeli Government, but that is what is taking place right now due to totally spineless Labour Leadership under Keir Starmer. The Tories are just thankful that the heat is off their shambolic handling of the Covid 10 crisis and no one is taking much notice of their crazy plan for crash=out Brexit that will plunge the working poor of this country into years of misery.

    It may take a few days for the left to fully react, but I certainly hope Labour Party members will not passively allow the Zionist lobby to gut the Labour Party. EHRC totally failed to recognize CAA’’s relentless political agenda, but this heavily biased organization will hopefully face a tough legal battle under Judicial Review initiated by Chris Williamson. The compliant BBC and rightwing press are trying to sell this travesty as a major victory for Starmer and his centrist followers, but this injustice could spark a significant Labour revolt. The grotesquely unfair treatment of Jeremy Corbyn could be the final straw where the Unions turn against Starmer and cut off Union funding. It might be time for the Socialists, including Corbyn, to find a truly 100% progressive Socialist party to join: the Green Party! If Corbyn joined the Greens Labour Party members would follow him in droves. The only hope for Labour is to expose the corruption of fantisemitism, Investigate the result of the Covert 2019 Rigged Election, ditch Starmer and install Corbyn as PM. DO NOT MOVE ON!

    #61909 Reply
    Kim Sanders-Fisher

    I was too nauseated by the parade of vile accusers presented in propaganda news segments to watch the televised betrayal; I am still in shock! In an Electronic Intifada, (ei) Article entitled, “UK ‘Labour anti-Semitism’ probe finds only two ‘unlawful acts’,” they highlight the truly pathetic outcome of the EHRC’s lengthy ‘fantisemitism fishing expedition.’ They say, “The EHRC has accused former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn’s office of ‘political interference’ in anti-Semitism allegations. The UK’s official equality watchdog has failed to find the Labour Party guilty of ‘institutional anti-Semitism,’ after a 17-month investigation. But the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) made a veiled swipe at former party leader Jeremy Corbyn in a much anticipated new report on Thursday.” In reality, the actual conclusion of the report was drowned out by Media spin as the corrupted BBC and Right-wing press ramped-up and reinvented charges against a sworn socially progressive enemy of the establishment: Jeremy Corbyn.

    ei say of EHRC that, “It accuses the party of a ‘failure of leadership’ during Corbyn’s tenure as well as “political interference’ by his office over complaints of anti-Semitism. It accuses two Labour figures – including former mayor of London Ken Livingstone – of ‘unlawful harassment’ against unspecified Jewish people. ‘Our investigation has identified serious failings in leadership and an inadequate process for handling anti-Semitism complaints across the Labour Party,’ the report states. But it makes no recommendation of any disciplinary action against individuals. The current Labour leader Keir Starmer said months ago he would implement all its recommendations. The Campaign Against Antisemitism – one of the two pro-Israel lobby groups that referred Labour to the EHRC in the first place – demanded on Wednesday that heads should roll. ‘Those responsible remain in the party and must be held to account,’ their chief executive told The Guardian.” The CAA want to gut the Labour Party with their demands.

    ei point out that, “The EHRC’s impartiality has been widely called into question. Its critics – including Corbyn – say it is too close to the ruling Conservatives and point to senior EHRC figures with close ties to the government and of the body’s refusal to act against anti-Black racism. Former Labour lawmaker Chris Williamson told The Electronic Intifada that the report was ‘a major climb-down’ and that he had been vindicated. In its referral of Labour to the EHRC last year, pro-Israel group the Jewish Labour Movement had insisted that the body had a duty ‘to force the Labour Party to acknowledge that it has become institutionally anti-Semitic.’ But the final report published today notably makes no mention of that key allegation – a common smear made by pro-Israel lobby groups in the years since Corbyn became leader in 2015. “The stitch-up had no legs,” said Williamson. “The serious accusations against me could not be sustained and the EHRC had to back down. I’ve been vindicated as a longstanding anti-racist campaigner.”

    ei say, “Williamson was suspended from the party in 2019 over false anti-Semitism allegations and later resigned in protest. The Electronic Intifada understands that an earlier draft of the report contained findings against Williamson. But after representations from Williamson’s lawyers, the EHRC wrote back that they would subsequently remove the findings before publication. My prediction – The EHRC report will be a disappointment for Zionists etc but they will attempt not show it too much – and make the most of it. Starmer will do exactly that and use it to attempt to change Party rules, which will cover flag waving… — Jackie walker (@Jackiew80333500) October 27, 2020 Second prediction for EHRC – those who have been duped will stay duped. Those who were complicit will use what they can. The rest? – it will make more angry. As for most minorities…. they will get the message loud and clear. The hierarchy is official policy, sod the rest. — Jackie walker (@Jackiew80333500) October 27, 2020″

    ei document that, “The report claims that ‘the Labour Party committed unlawful harassment through the actions of its agent, Ken Livingstone’ (at the time a member of the ruling National Executive Committee) because in April 2016 he pointed to a ‘smear campaign by ‘the Israel lobby’ to stigmatize critics of Israel as anti-Semitic, as well as being aimed at undermining and disrupting the leadership of Jeremy Corbyn’. This claim was validated by credible undercover video footage of Israeli Embassy and Zionist Lobby involvement in the Israeli Government funded smear campaign. ei say, “Livingstone did this, the report says, by defending Labour lawmaker Naz Shah, who had posted an image to Facebook ‘suggesting that Israel should be relocated to the United States’ and a second post ‘in which she appeared to liken Israeli policies to those of Hitler.’ Livingstone has always denied saying anything anti-Semitic. He told The Electronic Intifada that the draft EHRC report had not been sent to him before publication.”

    ei report that, “In a fuller statement after the report was published on Thursday, he defended his record, saying, ‘As a life-long anti-racist, I am deeply hurt by – and fully reject – the accusations again being circulated across parts of the media.’ Livingstone’s defence of Shah led to a subsequent BBC radio interview in which he (accurately) pointed out that in the early 1930s when he first came to power, Nazi leader Adolf Hitler ‘was supporting Zionism.’ But the report does not mention the long-running controversy over this comment, which led to Livingstone twice being suspended by the party and ultimately forced to resign. Instead it asserts that Shah’s posts were ‘anti-Semitic social media posts’ and that merely by denying they were anti-Semitic, Livingstone was guilty of ‘unwanted conduct related to Jewish ethnicity,’ which ‘had the effect of harassing members of the Labour Party’.”

    ei say that, “The EHRC has the power under British law to force a body such as the Labour Party to come up with an ‘action plan’ to address its rulings. The report recommends Labour should commission an ‘independent process to handle and determine anti-Semitism complaints’ for an unspecified period ‘until trust and confidence in the process is restored.’ Long a demand of the Jewish Labour Movement, Starmer has already committed to establishing an independent complaints procedure for anti-Semitism. The EHRC does not have any power to sanction individuals. But James Libson, a lawyer acting for the Jewish Labour Movement, said during a JLM public meeting held on Zoom in June that an EHRC ruling naming individuals could open the way to legal action against them. ‘There may be avenues for individual people to bring [legal] proceedings themselves’ against Labour figures, Libson said, ‘if the EHRC says that this person was subject to harassment, unlawful acts, or something of that nature’.”

    ei warn us that, “Having already played a major part in removing him as leader, the manufactured ‘anti-Semitism crisis’ campaign which has been seeking to remove Corbyn from Labour altogether may yet achieve its maximal goal.” We should fully anticipate the total evisceration of the Labour Party to remove the progressive Left faction for a more Corporate compliant non-opposition. We must also brace for a tsunami of SLAPP Lawsuits as all of the shallow opportunists seek to exact their pound of flesh from the rotting carcass of the dismembered political entity that was Labour. While no personal affront justifies the brutal attacks in France, Macron is defending the free speech right to be as utterly debasing of a venerated religious figure as one can possibly imagine. But here in the UK free speech is totally banished, as just daring to criticize or condemn Israel for the ruthless persecution of the cruelly oppressed Palestinians is now fully rebranded as racist and anti-Semitic hate speech! I am deeply ashamed to be British!

    The false accusations of fantisemitism will now stop even with the Labour Party brought to its knees due to their appeasement of the toxic Zionist movement. Other progressive Socialist parties who have tried to criticize the racist policies of apartheid Israel have come under attack too, but their push-back has been strident and successful. In a Morning Star Article entitled, “Jewish Chronicle rapped by press regulator after misleading readers over alleged anti-semitism in the Green Party,” it is obvious that Zionist Lobby groups are trying to spread their cancerous defamation. They say, “ISPO upholds complaint by the Greens’ home-affairs spokesman Shahrar Ali. PRESS regulators have ruled that the Jewish Chronicle printed inaccuracies and misled its readers in a story about alleged anti-semitism in the Green Party. The newspaper was forced to publish a full correction yesterday after the Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO) upheld a complaint by the Greens’ home-affairs spokesman, Shahrar Ali.”

    The Morning Star report that, “The complaint centred on claims published by the paper on December 6 2019 that Mr Ali had compared Israel’s 2009 attack on Gaza with the holocaust on Holocaust Memorial Day, in a speech given that same year. But the regulator found this both misleading and inaccurate, upholding that Mr Ali had not compared the two and had also not given the speech on Holocaust Memorial Day. IPSO ruled on Thursday that the Jewish Chronicle had breached the editorial code of conduct by presenting an allegation as fact, printing inaccuracies and failing to properly address its errors. The regulator also concluded that the inaccuracy of the timing was ‘significant’ given the ‘sensitivity of the occasion’.”

    The Morning Star reported that, “The speech Mr Ali made in 2009 during the bombardment of Gaza had called for former PM Tony Blair, former US president George W Bush and then Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert to face a war-crimes tribunal. In a video of the speech, Mr Ali is heard to say: ‘Listen up warmongers. Just because you observe the niceties of Holocaust Memorial Day does not mean that you have learned the lessons of history.’ Mr Ali hailed IPSO’s ruling as an ‘important win’ that will ‘help embolden all those life-long anti-racists who want to continue to speak out against Israel’s oppression of the Palestinian people’.”

    “Unfortunately, I’ve seen an inability, even in our own party and across politics in general, for people who have spoken out before against injustice [against Palestinians] to continue to do so,” he told the Morning Star. “Not only are human-rights injustices being neglected because of these fears of being stigmatised and castigated unjustly as anti-semitic, but in addition real xenophobia, true racism whether against Jews or against Muslims is not being properly addressed.” The article also accused several other Green candidates who were running in the 2019 general election of breaching the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of anti-semitism, which the party has not signed up to. Campaigners argue that the IHRA definition is being used to silence legitimate criticism of Israel and the ability to speak up for the Palestinian cause.” Sadly the Labour Leadership fell head long into this bear trap and they have been unable to extricate themselves ever since.

    The Morning Star remind us that, “It is not the first time that the Jewish Chronicle has been rapped by the press regulator over articles about alleged anti-semitism on the left and in the Palestinian solidarity movement. Several people have successfully sued the paper. Earlier this year the Jewish Chronicle was ordered to publish a 1,300-word adjudication after printing a series of false allegations of bullying and anti-semitism against Labour activist Audrey White, who also won ‘substantial damages,’ over the issue. The Jewish Chronicle was approached for comment.” It will require a serious proactive fight-back to eliminate this scourge, but the lesson here is that fantisemitism accusations are easily unravelled and debunked when the false accusers are challenged in a Court of Law. Sadly this response was never adopted by the Labour Party as they chose the path of appeasement fooled into believing the attacks would stop; the never will stop without robust Legal challenge and that is the path forward in solidarity.

    In the Morning Star Article entitled, “Charity faces election bias investigation,” they highlight how, “Green Party spokesman reports the Campaign Against Antisemitism to Charity Commission over anti-Corbyn smear campaign.” Why did it take another Socialist Party to stand up to this toxic organization that is dedicated to furthering the cause of eliminating all criticism of Israel’s racist policies. No so called ‘Charity’ should exist to expressly promote the cause of racism, obscuring gross Human Rights abuses and war crimes by falsely accusing those fighting for justice of fantisemitism! But this is the perversely warped reality in which we now live where evil is the new good to be protected by weak politicians bought off by well funded lobby groups.

    The Morning Star report on, “A Charity that responded to Jeremy Corbyn’s election defeat by saying that ‘the beast is slain’ is reportedly under investigation by the third-sector watchdog. Campaign Against Antisemitism (CAA) has been reported to the Charity Commission for heading a number of anti-Labour campaigns. The complaint, made by Green Party home-affairs spokesman Shahrar Ali, accused the group of failing to be independent of party politics — a requirement under law for charities. Mr Ali’s complaint centres on comments made by CAA’s head of political investigations, Joe Glasman, in a video published shortly after the 2019 election result. Mr Glasman comments on Labour’s election defeat by saying that ‘the beast is slain,’ also using the word ‘slaughtered.’ The bizarre video appears to show Mr Glasman admitting to co-ordinating a campaign using ‘spies and intel’ against the party.” We can only hope thart this vital piece of evidence was submitted to the EHRC.

    “Mr Ali, a former deputy head of the Green Party, described the language used by Mr Glasman as ‘unconscionable’.” He told the Morning Star: “I think it is imperative that politicians from across the political spectrum call out and condemn negative campaigning which would incite hatred and goes well beyond the bounds of common decency. ‘Following Jo Cox’s murder, it is even more pressing that we do so. The fact that Corbyn is a lifelong anti-racist campaigner makes such unjust vilification by CAA especially troubling and unconscionable. This is not the kind of misconduct that a registered charity should be engaging in with impunity. We must clean up our political culture and these kinds of negative campaigns must be rooted out, exposed and combatted.’ Mr Ali submitted the complaint earlier this month. He claimed that the commission will now investigate the matter after having made an initial assessment of the concerns raised.”

    The Morning Star report that, “A Charity Commission spokesperson said: ‘We have been made aware of concern regarding comments made by an employee of the Campaign Against Antisemitism, which is being assessed in line with our usual processes. By law, charitable organisations must not support or oppose a particular political party. It also states that particular care must be taken during an election campaign to not indicate to its supporters which party or person to vote for. Mr Ali argues that CAA is in breach of these regulations given its heavy campaign against Mr Corbyn. Asked whether this might have played a part in the election result, Mr Ali said: ‘Unfortunately the unrelenting campaign against Mr Corbyn, which persisted for years and was stepped up during the election, must have had a negative impact on his election. The greatest victims from our failing to challenge and correct lies in politics are the oppressed themselves, including the Palestinians who suffer daily violence, and the fight against anti-Jewish racism itself.”

    According to the Morning Star, “The complaint is not the first to be made to the Charity Commission concerning CAA’s conduct. In 2018, the group was reported to the commission over its petition entitled “Jeremy Corbyn is an anti-semite and must go. The charity watchdog asked the group to reword the title ‘to ensure it complied with our guidance on campaigning and political activity,’ suggesting it has been in breach of demonstrating political party balance. CAA also reported the party to the Equality and Human Rights Commission, prompting the body to open a probe into the party. Jewish socialist group Jewish Voice for Labour has accused the group of disproportionately targeting Labour over other political parties. The group’s spokesman, Mike Cushman, said: ‘The activities of the CAA in its focus on the Labour Party have been of great concern for some time, as it does not appear to have been anything like as inquisitive about anti-semitism in the Conservative, UKIP or Brexit Parties’.”

    The Morning Star say that, “This has led to many suspicions of political bias inappropriate to a charity. The fight against anti-semitism is too important for it to get submerged in partisan manoeuvring,” he said. “CAA was founded in 2014 and describes itself as ‘a volunteer-led charity dedicated to exposing and countering anti-semitism through education and zero-tolerance enforcement of the law.’ The group did not respond to requests for comment by the time the Star went to print.” This highly toxic organization, formed to obscure and distract public attention from Israeli war crimes in the bombing of Gaza, has a ruthlessly aggressive anti-Palestinian political agenda that violates the Human Rights of this oppressed people and is not in the interests of British citizens. CAA is not a legitimate ‘Charity’ and should be stripped of their charitable status; their politically motivated attacks on Labour should never have been entertained by the EHRC, but now they will try to force Starmer to purge Labour’s progressive Left.

    Many people who have retained their Labour membership despite Keir Starmer reengaging on all of his campaign promises, his sacking of Rebecca Long Bailey, his cowardly capitulation, against the advice of the Labour Legal team, to squander party funds on an unwarranted pay out to John Ware with a grovelling apology that disgraced the party: is Corbyn’s removal the last straw? If they are still in possession of a Labour membership card they should certainly use it to vote for Left slate candidates on the NEC, but after that it may be time to go. In response to the ei article I posted: “There already exists a 100% Socialist, fully democratic, fair, just political party, so totally committed to tackling the Climate Crisis we created the Green New Deal: this is of course the Green Party. If, instead of remaining as an Independent MP or trying to form an entirely new party, Jeremy Corbyn aligned with the Green Party a massive swath of committed Socialists would flock to join him as would other progressive Left Labour MPs.”

    I wrote, “It is possible within the Green Party to declare as Green and another unique affiliation, so Corbyn and any other like-minded breakaway MPs could renounce the Labour whip, or wait for the public disgrace of the Starmer purge, and then declare as ‘Progressive Socialist and Green’ Candidates. The Unions would have a new party to consider backing with their funding and this, on top of a sizable exodus of Labour MPs, could mean that the Captain of Capitulation, our Tory Trojan horse, Keir Starmer will lose his legitimacy as Leader. Political Parties are now recognizing the importance of the global Climate Crisis; for the Green Party it was always a major priority, but equality, peace and the Socialist agenda is just as important to the Greens.”

    I concluded my comment by writing that, “However, the first past the post voting system kept the party down to a solitary very well respected MP, Caroline Lucas. A new infusion of already elected MPs could mean that the Green Party would finally gain the recognition and momentum it needs to surge in popularity among voters weary of austerity, inequality and injustice. Greens reject Zionist intervention: we have always supported the poor, the oppressed and the Palestinian cause. For MPs hounded out of Labour, the Green Party already has a well defined progressive political agenda and a fully organized party structure in place, so they could ‘hit the ground running.’ The Greens rapidly growing international membership stands ready to accept tolerant, peace loving, environmentally conscious, Socialist MPs and new members: join!” Can you imagine another 33 Green MPs in Parliament!

    I do not believe it is any longer possible for the progressive Left MPs within the Labour Party to survive the imminent purge of their ranks and I think it would be foolish for them to wait for the inevitable as Keir Starmer fulfils his role as traitor to the Socialist cause. New political parties have a tough road to hoe and most do not survive; the public will go back to expecting little more than a choise between Tory and Tory lite. It has never been more important to challenge the fake ‘landslide victory’ of the Covert 2019 Rigged Election and demand a full Investigation of the result. If the truth exposes a stolen election then not only could we remove this corrupt Tory Government from office we could challenge the premise that Jeremy Corbyn should have felt obliged to relinquish the leadership. Only a complete exposure of the data leading to the total upheaval of both Boris Johnson and Keir Starmer no longer legitimately in post and forced out will expunge the damage to Labour; a “Progressive Socialist and Green Party” might just work. DO NOT MOVE ON!

    #61945 Reply
    Kim Sanders-Fisher

    One could be forgiven for describing the EHRC Report into the Labour Party’s crimes of ‘fantisemitism’ a “Storm in a Teacup,” but that would be the understatement of the century; this travesty of injustice is more like a “Typhoon in a Teaspoon!” This extreme, highly politicized, overreaction cannot be accepted from the EHRC, the public body whose remit is combating racism and Human Rights abuse, but remains totally devoid of ethnic minority representation. The EHRC have systematically ignored the Windrush scandal, the Grenfell Tower disaster, Racial Profiling, Stop and Search, Police violence, migrant incarceration and the Black Lives Matter grievances totally aside from obscenely blatant racism and Islamophobia in the Tory Party. Once again the Tory Party are relying on compliant BBC stooges to pepper Labour MPs with aggressive questioning demanding admissions of guilt and grovelling contrition. After I was too sickened to keep watching, Newsnight’s Kirsty Wark was trounced by a courageously honest respondent!

    Jewish Voice for Labour have not raced to fulfil any arbitrary publication pressure deadline, stating that they are deliberately taking their time to fully respond with carefully considered judgement regarding all of the report material presented. Given their standing representing Labour’s unbiased Jewish community I believe this is a wise decision. They have linked to other assessments already posted on the internet and I have been wading through all of the material I can find which I will share with you here. According to Tony Greenstein’s assessment of the EHRC Report jvl will discover very little substance that might constitute any really significant violations beyond poor management before Corbyn replaced Iain McNicol. Responses are all the more valid when they emanate from a member of the Jewish community, sadly one who has been targeted as “the wrong kind of Jew” and labelled anti-Semitic. Greenstein’s Video Presentation is a must watch as it lays out why he feels so strongly about the Weaponization of anti-Semitism.

    On his website Tony Greenstein’s Post entitled, “Starmer Declares War on the Left – Its About Time to Declare War on Him” he adds, “We Demand the Reinstatement of Jeremy Corbyn.” Targeting his venerated predecessor, the Labour Leader’s response to the EHRC Report is truly shocking. He insists that, “The EHRC Report Should Be Rejected along with the Myth of Labour Anti-Semitism. Jeremy Corbyn was absolutely right in the comments that got him suspended: ‘One antisemite is one too many, but the scale of the problem was also dramatically overstated for political reasons by our opponents’. It is a real shame that he did not say so when he could have made a real difference to the civil war in the Labour Party. Unfortunately, it was the Corbyn leadership’s silence and complicity in the witch-hunt that made his suspension possible in the first place. Hundreds of socialists and Corbyn supporters have been suspended and expelled for comments that often do not amount to much more than what Corbyn said.”

    With reference to the Labour Party, Greenstein rightly claims that, “We need to understand that the campaign by the right inside and outside the party was never about fighting antisemitism. It was always a campaign designed to get rid of Corbyn and make sure that the Labour Party becomes once again a safe ‘second eleven’ that could run Britain on behalf of capitalism, and follow the US into any new military adventure. Sadly, it appears as if Corbyn and his allies still do not understand this basic reality. The six candidates supported by the Centre-Left Grassroots Alliance in the current NEC elections have made sure not to mention the word ‘witch-hunt’, or propose any actions on how to stop it. In a tweet following his suspension, Corbyn writes that, ‘I’ve made absolutely clear those who deny there has been an antisemitism problem in the Labour Party are wrong. I will continue to support a zero tolerance policy towards all forms of racism’.”

    Greenstein explains how, “Corbyn himself has now become a victim of this ‘zero tolerance’ approach he champions. The fight for socialism is intrinsically linked to a culture of free speech and open debate on all issues – including, importantly, the question of Israel/Palestine. Please click here to sign and share the excellent petition/open letter by the LLA Anyone who believes that Jeremy Corbyn was suspended on the basis of what he actually said today needs their head examining. It was planned long ago. Back in July there were rumours emanating from Starmer’s office that Corbyn would be suspended when the EHRC Report was released. The Canary reported on 22nd July that ‘According to a few Labour sources this morning, it’s ‘very possible’ and ‘highly likely’ that Jeremy Corbyn will have the whip removed very soon, as a result of some of the recommendations in the EHRC report.’ #LabourAntisemitism.”

    According to Greenstein, “Starmer is using the recommendations of the EHRC in order to purge the Left by removing the presence of a former leader. The question is whether or not the Left responds by declaring war on Starmer or, like Momentum makes a pathetic plea for unity with those trying to destroy it. Some of thought that when Lansman’s cronies were defeated earlier this year by Momentum Forward that its politics might change. Unfortunately Momentum Forward has continued where Lansman left off. Yesterday they put out an appalling statement in reaction to Corbyn’s suspension in which they protested that ‘This suspension risks politicising Labour’s response to antisemitism.’ Perhaps someone should tell Scatterbrain that anti-Semitism has been weaponised for over 5 years now. Starmer wants to destroy the left not unite with it! McDonnell symbolises the political weakness of the Labour Left and Momentum, he defends Corbyn in the name of the fight against ‘antisemitism,’ the very thing used to get rid of Corbyn.”

    Greenstein exclaims, “Who do Momentum think Margaret Hodge, Tom Watson, Lucian Berger et al represent? The anti-racist left? Momentum pathetically plead that the suspension ‘should be immediately lifted in the interests of party unity.’ Where have these dunderheads been living? Starmer isn’t interested in party unity. He’s interested in driving out the left from the Labour Party. If Momentum don’t recognise this it’s because they are wedded to the same reformist illusions as Lansman. Momentum’s co-chairs then go on to describe the EHRC Report in completely uncritical terms. Scatterbrain says that: “for many it will make for difficult reading. It concludes that the Labour Party complaints process for antisemitism is inadequate, and expresses concern that the current process does not ensure fair and transparent sanctioning of antisemitism complaints. It also finds unlawful acts to have been committed by former Labour Party agents. It is clear that whatever this year’s Momentum elections were about they were not about politics.”

    Greenstein asserts that, “The EHRC is not an anti-racist body. Its Commissioners are taken from the corporate and banking world with the odd lawyer thrown in. It is an organisation of the liberal Establishment that has been mobilised to drive a wedge into the Labour Party using identity politics to disguise its purpose. It is a body that has said next to nothing about the Windrush scandal, done nothing about the ‘hostile environment’ policy of the Tories, it has said nothing about stop and search, refugees or institutional racism. Why? Because it is itself an institutionally racist body. As Simon Woolley, a former Commissioner wrote the EHRC doesn’t have one single Black or Muslim Commissioner. It is stuffed with liberal and corporate do gooders. Woolley wrote ‘I’ve been particularly stuck by the huge gulf between the EHRC and the new generation of young Black Lives Matter activists’.”

    According to Greenstein, “The EHRC is utterly irrelevant to the victims of racism in Britain today. It is a body whose sole purpose is in incorporating and blunting the anti-racist message. It is as much our enemy as Boris Johnson. Whilst we must oppose Corbyn’s suspension he is the author of his own misfortune.” This view is strongly felt by many of Jeremy Corbyn’s most ardent supporters; why was he so eager to appease those who were exaggerating and exploiting such a relatively insignificant problem among a very small number of members? His determination to just “turn the other cheek” resulted in him getting repeatedly pummelled in the press when possibly a single defamation Lawsuit would have sent the wolves packing. Greenstein says that, “When the EHRC first proposed its investigation it should have been vigorously opposed as an intrusion by a State body into a democratic political party. What has happened is the kind of tactic used in police states. The State has effectively sought to neutralise a radical political party.”

    Greenstein justifiably describes Boris Johnson as “a genuine racist” and points out that the EHRC is dependent on his Government for its funding. The EHRC aversion to taking on issues that might expose Tory failures or wrongdoing is obvious: ‘don’t bite the hand that feeds you!’ “According to a Yougov poll for Hope not Hate, nearly half of Tory Party members oppose having a Muslim Prime Minister and more than two-thirds of Tory members believe the myth that parts of the UK are under Sharia law. 45% think some areas are not safe for non-Muslims.” He stresses, “if that is not enough nearly two-thirds of Tory members believe that Islam is a threat to western civilisation. Yet the EHRC has fought shy of doing anything about an openly racist party led by someone who believes that Black people are ‘picanninies’ with ‘water melon smiles.’ Unlike ‘anti-Semitism’ in the Labour Party Islamaphobia in the Tory Party is part of its DNA. Yet this useless body has kept its mouth shut for fear of losing what’s left of its grant.”

    Greenstein rants about how Corbyn should have acted, but where were all these people of wise council when it could have made a difference right in the very beginning? Despite Tory immunity from criticism and the relentless onslaught of vilification that Corbyn suffered in the Media, his enemies were stunned by the 2017 Election result. False confidence perhaps, but smears alone were not enough; the Covert 2019 Rigged Election required industrial scale fraud still to be Investigated. Greenstein says, “Corbyn, whose stupidity is beyond doubt, said nothing when what he should have done was to refuse all co-operation. When 2 openly Zionist organisations, both of which are effectively extensions of the Israeli state, the Jewish Labour Movement and the Campaign Against Anti-Semitism, made their complaints to the EHRC, Corbyn should have launched legal action to stop it in its tracks. This is state interference in a legal party and a breach of Article 11 of the European Convention of Human Rights on freedom of association.”

    Greenstein reports that, “Realising that its previous statement was hopelessly inadequate Momentum issued another statement after a meeting tonight. The statement was equally useless. It read: ‘The suspension of Jeremy Corbyn by the Labour Party leadership is a factional attack on the left that inevitably undermines the fight against anti-semitism and makes a mockery of Keir Starmer’s pledge to unite the Party. Tonight our Party is more divided than ever’.” The Article includes a picture stating the harsh reality that: “Apartheid was legal – The Holocaust was legal – Slavery was legal – Colonialism was legal.” However he says, “This perfectly reasonable meme was part of the Notice of Investigation which led to the expulsion of Simon Hindmarsh – it made a political point that all the world’s worst atrocities were legal – in the eyes of Labour’s witchhunters it was ‘antisemitic’ – go figure.”

    Of the Momentum leadership Greenstein says, “When will the Scatterbrain and Sriskanthan get it into their heads that there has never been a fight against ‘anti-Semitism’ in the Labour Party? It has always been an attack on anti-Zionism and the Palestinians. Every Letter of Investigation I have seen accuses people of anti-Semitism based on their comments about Israel, the world’s only apartheid state. Phil Woolas, Labour MP for Oldham & Saddleworth ran a nakedly anti-Muslim campaign trying to stir up the racist White vote – and Tom Watson ‘lost sleep’ over the injustice of the High Court removing this racist Does Scatterbrain really think that Tom Watson, Hodge and co. were really interested in fighting anti-Semitism? The same Hodge who was praised by the BNP for her housing policies? Or the same Tom Watson who ‘lost sleep’ thinking about the injustice of the High Court removing racist Labour MP Phil Woolas from the Parliament after running a campaign that aimed to ‘make the White folk angry’?”

    Greenstein claims that, “The ‘anti-Semitism’ campaign waged for the past 5 years was not about anti-Semitism. If it was then isn’t it strange that so many Jewish members have been expelled or suspended.” He questions, “why should Labour MPs who voted to legalise torture be concerned about anti-Semitism anyway? We know Starmer’s attitude to racism. Black Lives Matter is just a moment whose time has gone. He believes in more funding for the racist Metropolitan Police. At a time of Black Lives Matter, stop and search, Windrush etc. the only form of racism that matters is ‘antisemitism’.” As a Jewish person himself he asserts, “Jews in Britain are a privileged White community. To prioritise ‘anti-Semitism’ over racism against Black and Muslim people is itself racist.”

    Greenstein acknowledges, “Sure there is some antisemitic prejudice if you look hard enough but as the EHRC Report concedes most of it is in social media. No one has ever died from a tweet but plenty of Black youth have died in Police custody yet Starmer has nothing but praise for the Police. Growing up as a Jewish person in non-Jewish communities I never had to fear being attacked in the street. I didn’t have to hide from the deportation squads. My father wasn’t stopped when driving for being Jewish and handcuffed. Jews in Britain are not oppressed. They are, for the most part, a prosperous middle class community. The days of working class Jewish communities are gone. The Jews of the East End have moved to London’s suburbs. My favourite restaurant, Blooms in Whitechapel closed years ago. In short Jews do not experience state racism. They are the kept pets of Britain’s ruling class for whom it is a safe form of anti-racism.”

    Greenstein says, “The ‘antisemitism’ campaign was always about attacking Corbyn. Yet Momentum’s Scattergood/Sriskanthan believes that a campaign which only arose when Corbyn became leader is somehow being jeopardized by Corbyn’s suspension! Momentum Forward and Lansman’s Momentum Renewal are peas in a pod. If you want to read a decent statement on the suspension of Jeremy Corbyn then you can do worse than read the Morning Star’s Jeremy Corbyn’s suspension is a declaration of war.” He proposes activism, stating, “you don’t win a war by asking someone trying to kill you to hold your hand! What Can We Do? This Saturday Labour Against the Witchhunt is organising a public meeting with Ken Livingstone, Chris Williamson, Jackie Walker, Marc Wadsworth and Tony Greenstein speaking. The following Saturday there is a similar line-up being organised with Asa Winstanley, Chris Williamson and Tony Greenstein speaking, chaired by Miko Peled, the ‘wrong sort of Israeli Jew’ chairing.”

    Greenstein announces other events, “On Friday Brighton & Hove LLA will be organising a local anti-witchhunt meeting. Starmer’s suspension of his predecessor is unprecedented. We should be clear about why we oppose it and where it came from. Corbyn himself laid the basis for what has happened. His opposition to Open Selection at the 2018 Labour Party Conference and then his decision at the 2019 Party Conference to support ‘fast track’ expulsions which we were assured were only for ‘egregious’ cases but which have since been used in EVERY ‘anti-Semitism’ case laid the basis for his own suspension. Corbyn has literally fashioned his own noose. However just because someone is an idiot or a coward doesn’t mean one should not support them! The Labour Left Alliance have launched an Open Letter: Reinstate Jeremy Corbyn please sign it. Labour Against the Witchhunt has also issued a statement ‘Reinstate Jeremy Corbyn’ as well as a model motion Reinstate Jeremy Corbyn! Stop the witch-hunt!”

    Greenstein says, “The gloves are off and anyone who thinks that by conceding to the lie that there was an ‘anti-Semitism’ problem in Labour that they are then going to gain a tactical advantage is seriously mistaken. ‘Anti-Semitism’ was the Right’s chosen weapon. It was never about anti-Jewish racism, hence why the IHRA misdefinition of anti-Semitism was foisted upon the Labour Party. In fact I am incorrect. It was Corbyn himself at the end of 2016 who unilaterally adopted the 38 word IHRA. Having spent his whole political life supporting the Palestinians, having been called an ‘antisemite’ countless times, he voluntarily adopted a definition whose only purpose was to conflate anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism and define him as an anti-Semite. Anti-Semitism was chosen as the method of attack precisely because it was not a form of racism but a means of denigrating opposition to the Israeli state and giving the Right some moral stature. It fitted in well to the Left’s addiction to Identity Politics rather than Class Politics.”

    Greenstein is heavily critical of, “Those like Momentum’s Scatterbrain and the rest of the NCG who think they can gain Corbyn’s reinstatement on the basis of adhering to the EHRC Report are fooling themselves and no one else.” He states, “Free Speech has been abolished by Starmer’s new General Secretary David Evans. As part of the new democratic order David Evans, Labour’s General Secretary has issued another warning to local parties not to discuss the EHRC Report. It is clear that far from being a democratic party, the Labour Party has now become a tyranny. It is of prime importance to democrats in the party that Evans is defied and told where to go. It is crucial that local parties defy Evans and go ahead and condemn the report and Starmer with it. That is what Momentum should be calling for not unity with the evil.” There was a similar prohibition issued by David Evans trying to curtail any debate among party members over the misuse of party funds to pay off a huge unwarranted legal settlement.

    Greenstein has written what he claims is just a “Brief Summation” of the EHRC Report, or rather his well considered response to it. Since it is actually quite lengthy I will feature it in its entirety in a post tomorrow. Referring to the report Greenstein says, “I spent two weeks compiling a 2 part summary of the 851 page Leaked Labour Report. The EHRC Report is an insubstantial tract. At 130 pages is remarkable for the fact that it is shallow and superficial, lacking in substance. Its main focus is the alleged failure of Labour’s disciplinary and complaints processes. Whereas it took me 3 days to read Labour’s Leaked Report on Anti-Semitism the EHRC Report was a breeze. There is nothing in it apart from procedure. The EHRC has produced a mouse and yet Starmer willed it on as a means of attacking the Left. Its failures are manifest to anyone who isn’t cerebrally challenged.” I can only hope that this EHRC wrecking ball embraced by Keir Starmer to vilify his predecessor will prove his downfall and fascinate Corbyn’s vindication. DO NOT MOVE ON!

    #61975 Reply
    Kim Sanders-Fisher

    Here in full and without comment from me is Tony Greenstein’s detailed Assessment of the failing of the EHRC Report:
    1. Quite amazingly for a report on anti-Semitism it doesn’t once try to define what it means by anti-Semitism. The EHRC know better than to define anti-Semitism concretely as hostility to or prejudice or discrimination against Jews. Instead they rely on things that are ‘offensive’ to Jews, regardless of whether they are true. It is an old trick.
    2. There is no attempt to ask who the 2 complainants, the Jewish Labour Movement and the Campaign Against Anti-Semitism actually are. The fact that the JLM describes itself as the ‘sister party’ of the almost extinct Israeli Labour Party is not even mentioned. Ha’aretz, Israel’s liberal daily describes its former leader Avi Gabbay as a Likudnik. It is a party that supported Netanyahu’s attempt to deport Israel’s 40,000 Black African refugees because, in Netanyahu’s words, they threatened Israel’s racial ‘Jewish identity.’

    ‘More likely to be : Male – In Social Housing – Older than 35 – Working – Living in Scotland or in England, south of the Midlands – First Generation Immigrant – Sympathetic to Terrorism, Exreemism and Violence;’ This delightful figure illustrated the CAA’s ‘Muslims and Antisemitism’ Report
    3. The CAA is a virulently Islamaphobic organisation, racist to its root, which works with Zionist supporters of Tommy Robinson. In other words the complainants to the EHRC are themselves deeply racist. It published a coloured graphic of the typical Muslim male as part of an attack on Muslims. If a similar graphic on Jews had been produced we would have never heard the end of it. The Jewish Labour Movement’s ‘sister party’ in Israel supported Netanyahu’s racist policy of deporting Black refugees because they are neither Jewish nor White – the JLM has never once condemned their racist sisters

    4. Not once did the EHRC entertain the idea that accusations of ‘anti-Semitism’ have been the staple of Zionist attacks on critics of Israel for decades. No less than the French President Macron has declared that anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism are one and the same. So if one opposes the Jewish nature of the Israeli state then that is anti-Semitic. Today Ha’aretz published an article about how Israel is seeking to expand the boundaries of the Jewish town of Harish because Arabs, at 44% are already nearly a majority. It wants to expand it to dilute the Arab presence. Yet to call this what it is is ‘anti-Semitism’. Since when was it anti-Semitic to oppose racism?
    5. The Report singles out two people in particular, Ken Livingstone, who pioneered anti-racism in local government and Pam Bromley, a councillor in Rossendale. The attack on Livingstone is particularly egregious but what the Report doesn’t mention is that it also singled out Chris Williamson. However Chris immediately instructed solicitors and the EHRC backed off. You won’t read that in the Report!

    6. There was no mention of the fact, and it is a fact, that the anti-Semitism campaign began as a completely confected campaign led by that well known opponent of racism, the Daily Mail, which alleged that Corbyn had links with Holocaust deniers Paul Eisen. Not once does it ask why the racist tabloids suddenly became so concerned with ‘anti-Semitism’. In short the Report completely decontextualises the allegations whilst insinuating that anyone denying that there was an anti-Semitism problem was themselves anti-Semitic! This is called ‘denialism’ which is the logic of the Salem Witchhunt when women and men were hanged for witchcraft in Massachusetts. As Elizabeth Purdy wrote: Those who publicly questioned the guilt of a defendant were likely to be accused of witchcraft themselves.
    7. The logic of ‘denialism’ is the ‘logic’ of the 17th Century witch-hunters yet Corbyn in his idiocy gave his backing to this nonsense. The idea that denying a crime is to admit it is the stuff of Kafka.

    8. The Report talks of ‘zero tolerance’ of anti-Semitism yet the EHRC has indulged the racism of the Tory Party without even the slightest comment. It has done nothing about the hostile environment policy or Windrush where Black British citizens were illegally deported. The idea that the EHRC is an anti-racist body is for the birds.
    9. Strangely enough for a report concerned with procedural irregularities it has nothing to say about Labour’s fast track expulsions where the accused are denied a hearing.
    10. There is repeated talk of ‘Jewish community stakeholders’. It never once explains who these might be but we can assume it means the Trump Tory supporting Board of Deputies. A body which cheered on the Israeli army as they mowed down unarmed Palestinian protesters in Gaza. They blamed the death of medics and children on the victims and they then profess to be concerned about anti-Semitism.
    11. Nearly all their examples of ‘anti-Semitism’ consist of social media posts. This simply trivializes anti-Semitism. Racism is about what people do not what they post on Twitter. Noone has ever died from a tweet but plenty have died from Israeli bullets.

    12. Despite saying that they took evidence from Jewish Voices for Labour there is no evidence of this. The EHRC comprehensively disregarded the voice of anti-Zionist and non-Zionist Jews.
    13. I wrote to the EHRC’s Investigation repeatedly offering to give evidence. They were not interested. When I pointed out their disinterest in Conservative Party racism they responded. With reference to your submission of 13 July 2019 and your specific observation relating to the Conservative Party, we can confirm that we are actively considering what, if any, action we may take in relation to the handling of Islamophobia and other discrimination within the Conservative Party. Further, we have made the following statement in relation to Windrush and the Government’s hostile environment policies.

    14. And that was it. After having ‘actively considered’ my submissions the decided to do absolutely nothing!
    15. Clearly there were some Jews who were more important than others. I told them that as the first Jewish person to be expelled I might have a different perspective on the fake anti-Semitism affair. They made it clear that they weren’t interested.
    15. The EHRC said they launched their ‘investigation’ because of ‘serious public concern about allegations of anti-Semitism’. It is strange that serious public concern about Police stop and search, the Windrush deportations and other acts of state racism merited no such concern. In fact there was no public concern about Labour anti-Semitism. It was a narrative of the Tory press and the Labour right-wing.

    16. Its main obsession was ‘political interference in the handling of anti-Semitism complaints.’ (p.7) Perhaps that was because the complaints themselves were politically motivated.
    17. It talks of ‘anti-Semitic conduct’ but never mentions what that conduct is. Everything is inferred.
    18. It mentions (p.17) that ‘over 20 elected representatives (including MPs, peers and councillors) resigned from the Party in 2018 and 2019 citing a failure to tackle anti-Semitism in their reasons.’ It was of course no coincidence that these people were all on the anti-Corbyn wing of the Labour Party and people who had never objected to for example New Labour’s hostile environment policy towards ‘illegal’ immigrants i.e. refugees.
    19. The Report quotes uncritically the Community Security Trust reports on anti-Semitic incidents but these are not value free. The CST is another pro-Zionist organisation.

    20. The legal basis of its inquiry, that the Labour Party was an association under the Equality Act 2010 omits the fact that it is a political party and allegations of ‘anti-Semitism’ were weaponised, e.g. the allegations at Oxford University which had been made by Alex Chalmers, a former intern of the Israel Lobby organisation BICOM. See How Israel lobby manufactured UK Labour Party’s anti-Semitism crisis. By definition a political party is not a sports club or other voluntary association. The EHRC is an organ of the state. It had no right to interfere and in essence take sides in a political dispute inside the Labour Party. It was Corbyn and Formby’s stupidity which prevented them telling the EHRC to mind their own business. Corbyn has literally dug his own grave.

    21. The Report suggests as an example of indirect discrimination that a party that holds its meetings on the Sabbath is discriminating against Jewish members. Bollocks. The Labour Party is a secular not a religious body. It is under no obligation to take into account superstitious religious beliefs. The only time that this could possibly be relevant is if the Labour Party held meetings on Saturday but had a rule stipulating that it should not hold meetings on Fridays or Sundays. Secularism is perfectly legal. (p.22)
    22. The Report hangs its argument on the basis that councillors, MPs and NEC members are ‘agents’ of the party. This is extremely dubious. They are elected representatives not agents. A political party is a free association of its members based on shared beliefs. It is no business of the State to interfere in its running as long as it abides by its own constitution.

    23. Quite outrageously the Report describes ‘allegations that complaints of anti-Semitism are fake or smears.’ as themselves anti-Semitic (p. 28) yet this is a regular practice of Zionists who even call Jews who are not Zionists ‘self haters’ ‘traitors’ ‘kapos’ etc. It is a fact that Zionists, Jewish or other do, as a regular practice allege anti-Semitism where there is none. The CAA, one of the complainants is a regular practitioner in making false allegations of anti-Semitism. It particularly targets Jews. Even the person who drafted the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism, Kenneth Stern gave testimony to the US Congress about the ‘egregious’ behaviour of the CAA in targeting a University Professor Rachel Gould as anti-Semitic for having written an article on the use of the holocaust to protect Israel. He also wrote an article ‘I drafted the definition of antisemitism. Rightwing Jews are weaponizing it’. The Report deliberately ignored the context which is that racist regimes allege racism against their opponents as a matter of course.

    24. To give but one example in Israel there are hundreds of Jewish only communities. In one city Afula, when houses under construction were due to be sold to Arabs hundreds of Jews took to the streets in protest. But if you allege Israel is a racist state then this is anti-Semitic. This Report is a racist report and it is a disgrace that Momentum refuses to call it out for what it is.
    25. The Report makes the insinuation that Ken Livingstone’s defence of Naz Shah MP’s meme about relocating Israel inside the United States was anti-Semitic and that his references to the Israel Lobby were anti-Semitic. Perhaps these dishonest scribes would care to look at Wikipedia’s entry Israel lobby in the United States. (p.29) AIPAC, the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee openly proclaims it is a lobby group. What the EHRC is saying is that the truth is now anti-Semitic. This is anti-Semitic.

    26. Absurdly it described Pam Bromley’s comment ‘looks like fake accusations of anti-Semitism to undermine Labour aren’t working, so let’s have Chris Williamson reinstated.’ That is a statement of fact but even facts can be anti-Semitic apparently!
    27. Ken Livingstone’s comments about Nazi support for the Zionists in Germany, which is a fact documented by Zionist historians such as David Cesarani and Francis Nicosia ‘caused shock and anger among Jewish Labour Party members.’ Well it didn’t shock Steven Kapos, a survivor of the Hungarian holocaust who I met because he understood the treacherous role of the Zionist organisation in Hungary. Even the Jerusalem District Court in 1955 found that Kasztner had collaborated with the Nazis. No doubt this would cause great shock too for these naïve racist Zionists. So what? The truth often offends. (p.30)
    28. Even more ludicrously ‘Pam Bromley’s conduct… contributed to a hostile environment in the Labour Party for Jewish and non Jewish members.’ Well in that case everyone on the Right was offended. How is that anti-Semitic? (p.30)

    29. Among the examples of ‘anti-Semitism’ were people who:
    • Compared Israelis to Hitler or the Nazis
    • Described a ‘witchhunt’ in the Labour Party or said that complaints had been manufactured by the ‘Israel lobby’. (why the scare quotes?)
    • Blamed Jewish people for the ‘anti-Semitism crisis in the Labour Party’ (clearly the Report couldn’t distinguish between Jews and Zionists, which is itself anti-Semitic)
    • Blamed Jewish people generally for the actions of the State of Israel. (where could people have got this idea? Could it be that Israel describes itself as a Jewish state?)
    • Used ‘zio’ as an anti-Semitic term. ‘zio’ is short for ‘Zionist’. If you think all Zionists are Jews then you are anti-Semitic.
    • Accused British Jews of greater loyalty to Israel than Britain. I have been called a traitor many times by Zionists who demand that Jews are loyal to Israel first and foremost. The Israeli Absorption Ministry even conducted a poll in the United States to find out what Jews would do if there was a crisis in relations between the USA and Israel! Now why would that be?! (p.31)

    30. The Report makes great play of ‘interference’ by the Leader of the Opposition’s office in disciplinary matters. Why should it not have interfered given the racist bias of the Disputes Team under John Stolliday and Sam Matthews? (p.45)
    31. Because of legal action the Report was forced to concede that the only unlawful interference in disciplinary processes was Tom Watson’s petition calling for Chris Williamson’s resuspension. Jennie Formby and Corbyn disgracefully acceded to this pressure. Corbyn has been hoist by his own petard.
    32. Even if LOTO should not have interfered in the disciplinary process what business is it of the EHRC?
    33. A good example of the circular logic of the geniuses who wrote the report was the statement that ‘Jewish members are proportionately more likely than non-Jewish members to make a complaint about anti-Semitism.’ Err yes!! Consequently the practice of interference in anti-Semitism complaints put Jewish members at a particular disadvantage compared to non-Jewish members. This is absolute nonsense. Obviously more Jews than non-Jews make complaints about anti-Semitism. It is an absurd comparison. How can it put Jews at a particular disadvantage when non-Jews don’t complain of anti-Semitism? (p.55) There is no comparator. The authors of the report don’t even understand the concept of indirect discrimination!

    34. The Report also mentions that I was suspended yet given no details of the allegations against me, despite requesting information on several occasions. It reports that I successfully obtained an injunction. However what the report does not do is mention that I am Jewish (it didn’t mention me by name).
    35. Even more relevant is the fact that the Labour Party expelled and suspended Jewish members regularly. What has this to do with anti-Semitism? The Report doesn’t mention this because it would have been inconvenient to its narrative. (p.63)
    36. Some of the Report’s observations such as that the NEC and NCC do not give reasons for their decisions are true, but what business is it of the EHRC?

    37. The Report says that Jennie Formby suggests that ‘these systemic issues affected all complaints of all kinds, not just anti-Semitism complaints’ and it then comments that ‘If correct, this means that an even wider pool of members was treated very poorly by their political party.’ Possibly true but what business is it of the EHRC? Have they investigated how the Tories treat their members? (p. 73)
    38. The Report notes that the Labour Party ‘has recently introduced reforms that improve the ability of the National Executive Committee (NEC) and the NCC to decide cases and to expel members when appropriate.’ What they fail to mention is the inherent unfairness of people being expelled on the whim of a staff member without even a hearing.
    39. The Report refers to the ‘outcry from CAA, Board of Deputies and Labour MPs and peers’ when Chris Williamson was reinstated. Yet strangely there is no censure by the EHRC for this interference with the disciplinary process. Strange that!

    40. Another example of ‘anti-Semitism’ was that ‘a member shared a meme in March 2018, which expressed that ‘an anti-Semite is now someone Jews hate.’ Here you have stupidity mixed with malevolence. The person who coined this meme was Hajo Meyer, an anti-Zionist survivor of the Auschwitz death camp. His actual quote was that ‘it used to be the case that an anti-Semite was someone who hated Jews, now it’s someone who the Jews hate’. An amusing observation. Jeremy Corbyn chaired a meeting at the House of Commons with Hajo in 2010 and when the Zionists publicised it the idiot apologised. Is it any wonder that Corbyn lost credibility? The more you apologise the more they go for you. Why the hell did Corbyn apologise for chairing a meeting addressed by a holocaust survivor? The BBC reported that Labour’s Jeremy Corbyn apologised for appearing on platforms with people whose views he “completely rejects“. (p.86)

    41. There are repeated complaints that ‘anti-Semitism’ was not given the same priority that sexual harassment allegations were. (p.93) Perhaps that was because sexual harassment claims tend to be genuine!
    42. Apparently the Labour Party committed unlawful harassment because its conduct ‘included suggesting that complaints of anti-Semitism were fake or smears’. But I was accused of anti-Semitism and I’m Jewish. Who am I harassing by denying this nonsense? Utterly absurd.
    43. It was suggested that Ken Livingstone’s comments that Zionist Jews were acting on behalf of a foreign power were ‘clearly anti-Semitic’. But the definition of a Zionist is that their loyalty is to Israel. How is that anti-Semitic? (p. 106)
    44. The moron(s) who wrote this Report therefore find ‘agent Ken Livingstone’ caused the Labour Party to indulge in harassment. It is no wonder that Keir Sturmer bought off Labour’s racist former staff.

    45. The Report found that the comments by Naz Shah ‘went beyond legitimate criticism of the Israeli government’ and that Ken Livingstone’s support for these comments and his suggestion that scrutiny of them was part of a smear campaign are not protected by Article 10 of the ECHR. Absolute rubbish and unsurprisingly the Report doesn’t explain why this is so. ( p. 108) The EHRC is simply wrong on this. Of course Ken’s comments are protected, despite the Zionists wishing to clamp down on free speech as they do in Israel.
    46. Likewise Pam Bromley’s comment that a ‘huge sigh of relief’ went up when an Israeli spacecraft crashed on the moon. This is garbage. If someone shouted ‘hurray’ when the Chinese spacecraft crashed would that also be racist?
    47. The fools who wrote this hatchet job concluded that ‘Pam Bromley’s comments were unwanted conduct related to Jewish ethnicity.’ Except that she didn’t mention Jews! That was the anti-Semitic inference of the authors of this report. (110)
    48. The Report finds that the unwanted conduct it identified was contrary to the Equality Act but equally breached the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism. Again that proves that its conclusions are junk.”

    At the culmination of his detailed assessment Tony Greenstein concludes, “The only fitting place for this shoddy report is in a wastepaper basket. Indeed that would be a good place to deposit Labour’s racist leader, Sir Keir Sturmer.” The value of this piece of carefully considered work from a member of the Jewish community is that it forms the basis of a grievance that should now be handed to a Legal Team in preparation for a Judicial Review. I hope that despite personal vindication Chris Williamson will do this. we must challenge this judgement just as we must challenge the Covert 2-19 Rigged Election result and demand an Investigation. We need to remove the Tory Party from office befoe they do any more harm. DO NOT MOVE ON.

    #62008 Reply
    Kim Sanders-Fisher

    Stating, “I Lost 39 Members of My Family in the Holocaust, Jeremy Corbyn is No Antisemite” Andrew Feinstein’s Video makes a passionate statement in Corbyn’s defence. In the Counterfire Article entitled, “Defend Corbyn: Counterfire statement on Jeremy Corbyn’s suspension,” they try to rally, “The whole of the left must unite to defend Jeremy Corbyn from this outrageous attack.” They insisted “We strongly condemn the suspension of Jeremy Corbyn from the Labour Party pending investigation. This is an outrageous attack on the whole left. The EHRC report published today does not uphold claims that Labour under his leadership was institutionally antisemitic and provides no justification for this action taken against him. Jeremy Corbyn’s statement in response to the report which is being used as the justification for his suspension clearly acknowledges that there is antisemitism in the Labour Party but that ‘the scale of the problem was also dramatically overstated for political reasons by our opponents’.” This is backed up by solid evidence.

    Counterfire contend that, “The decision to suspend him only clarifies further that allegations of antisemitism have been weaponised to attack Jeremy Corbyn and the left, and that Keir Starmer’s leadership is trying to bury the legacy of Corbynism and the left in the party. The whole of the left must unite to defend Jeremy Corbyn, a life-long anti-racist, from this witch-hunt. The task is obviously to organise and defend the Corbyn movement. But equally obviously it cannot limit itself to an internal Labour Party operation. It has to be the whole progressive social movement and trade union movement. This is where Corbynism came from, this is its best defence.”

    In the Counterfire Article entitled, “EHRC report: a green light for further attacks on Corbyn and the left which must be resisted,” there was a sence of bracing for the coming onslaught. In Lindsey German’s statement, posted ahead of the EHRC report into antisemitism in the Labour Party, he warned, “We will know shortly the results of the report by the EHRC into antisemitism in the Labour Party. The rumour is that it will not be too critical of individuals but will use ‘strong language’ in its conclusions. Keir Starmer has already said he will accept its conclusions – which may include complaints being dealt with by a body outside of the party, an incredible concession for any organisation to make. We should examine these claims closely before accepting them. Whatever the exact phrasing of the report, we all know that criticisms will focus on one man, Jeremy Corbyn, and some of his closest advisers. This will be a green light for further attacks on Corbyn and the left which must be resisted.”

    In a move that is classically against procedural norms regarding Corbyn’s right of rebuttal Counterfire say that, “Already he has been refused early sight of the report, which is almost unprecedented (those named in the Chilcot report had weeks to digest it and prepare their defences). Jeremy Corbyn will find out about it at the same time as the rest of us. This is only one small aspect of a process which has been utterly unedifying from start to finish.” They say that, “The EHRC itself has the power to investigate especially where equality law has been broken, but to the best of my knowledge has never investigated a political party. Indeed it decided earlier this year not to investigate the Tories over Islamophobia, despite numerous instances of remarks by elected representatives and a poll which showed widespread Islamophobia among Tory members.” ‘One rule for them’ protects the Tories from scrutiny’ they control the funding of EHRC so it would be unwise to bite the hand that feeds…

    In the day EHRC published the report Counterfire stated that, “Today is about giving official imprimatur to the idea that Labour under Corbyn was antisemitic. It is a lie, but one which has been established through constant repetition, highlighted in a mainstream media which routinely perpetrates racist myths, including about Jews, and viciously weaponised by Labour’s right. Antisemitism in Labour existed and still exists, but it was a problem with a small minority of members. Much of the complaints concerned individuals who weren’t members of the Labour Party, and over whom it had no control. Dealing with it was often slow, but improved when Jenny Formby became general secretary, and was, I know, taken seriously by those in and around the leadership. Shami Chakrabati produced a serious report to try to deal with it.”

    Counterfire point out the mistakes the progressive Left should have seen coming saying, “The issue was used as a political attack from the beginning, and the Labour left’s mistake was not always to see this or to deal with it. The adoption of the IHRA definition of antisemitism was a mistake, and was used to further attack the left and raise many charges against them which were found to be without foundation. The left is further constrained from speaking out about this report as it may lead to their expulsion from Labour.” Once again all discussion of a very contentious issue has been prohibited by threats of discipline just as it was when Starmer squandered Party funds making an unwarranted legal settlement with liars! But they say, “We should be clear on what the whole process was about. The very real fear of and opposition to antisemitism was used to weaken the left in general and to prevent speaking out in solidarity with the Palestinians. It is not the left which has equated criticism of Israel with antisemitism, it is the right.”

    Counterfire say that, “Opposition to antisemitism, an awareness of the devastating scale of the Holocaust and its impact on Jewish people worldwide, and a recognition of the importance of the Jewish political and cultural contribution to our society are essential for any socialist. Such views do not prevent us from showing solidarity with the Palestinians or criticising the state of Israel. Indeed we have to be able to do all these things. This issue has been weaponised by some to prevent that solidarity and that criticism, but they will not succeed. They will not succeed in silencing Jeremy Corbyn either.” Lindsey German unequivocally proclaims, “My solidarity with him today. He has always been against all racism and in support of Palestinian rights. It shows what a twisted world we live in that someone with such a record should be calumnied in this way. The left needs to stand up and be counted here.”

    Other prominent figures are voicing their outrage, rushing to Corbyn’s defence and impressing on us the danger now faced by the progressive Left movement that he led. Today former Labour MP Chris Williamson, a victim of the Labour fantisemitism witch-hunt who was targeted in the EHRC Report, has posted his response to EHRC’s investigation into anti-Semitism in the Labour Party. Williamson reports that, “Last year, the so-called Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) announced it was investigating the Labour Party’s handling of anti-Semitism, and they subsequently decided to name me in their draft report. Today, I am pleased to say that, despite an intense campaign of vilification against me, the EHRC has determined that I did not contribute towards ‘unlawful harassment related to Jewish ethnicity’ by the Labour Party. This is despite the fact that the Commission desperately attempted to cobble together such a finding, and initially included an assortment of risible and offensive comments about me.”

    Williamson says that, “Although the EHRC still includes some references to me, it is obvious that they have failed in their attempted witch-hunt, even though they had huge establishment backing. Thanks to the incredible support of our grassroots movement, I was able to assemble a top legal team, which exposed the draft report’s monumental flaws. The revised report acknowledges that I ‘successfully challenged’ my unlawful re-suspension from the Labour Party in the High Court last year. The Commission was also compelled to find that the Party’s disciplinary process against me was ‘influenced by external events’ and subject to ‘political interference’.” These statements from EHRC clearly show that those who vigorously fight-back and robustly defend themselves against unjust claims will force spurious accusations to be dropped because they are indefensible in a Court of law. This has been the single greatest failure of Jeremy Corbyn ‘turn the other cheek’ appeasement does not halt those intent on your destruction.

    Williamson proudly states that, “This outcome is a vindication of my longstanding record of standing up to racism, which stretches all the way back to the 1970s when I joined the Anti-Nazi League. And as a young apprentice bricklayer, I regularly risked my own personal safety by confronting casual racism on building sites. Furthermore, under my leadership, Derby City Council became one of the first local authorities in the country to formally commemorate Holocaust Memorial Day. I am therefore pleased that my commitment to anti-racism could not be impugned, despite the EHRC’s efforts.” His protestations serve to emphasize the massive injustice of vile defamation that Corbyn, Jackie Walker and so many other anti-racists have suffered defamatory persecution in the witch-hunt targeting the progressive Labour Left. This was at the behest of the racist apartheid Government of Israel’s aggressive campaign to eliminate all criticism of their targeted ethnic cleansing of Palestinians as they seek to steal and settle their land.

    Williamson states that, “Nevertheless, the justification behind this report is a travesty, and it is essential to understand the function it serves. The EHRC launched its investigation following ceaseless lobbying efforts by two anti-Corbyn and pro-Israel outfits, the Jewish Labour Movement (JLM) and the Campaign Against Antisemitism (CAA). To many of us, the motivations were clear: this was an attempt by Zionists and other racists to weaponise anti-Semitism in order to criminalise anti-Zionists and left-wing Jews. It also served another purpose, which was to help derail the Party’s pro-Palestinian leadership, after it had rocked the British establishment when it came tantalisingly close to winning office in 2017. These cynical motivations were facilitated by the EHRC, which itself has been the subject of repeated controversy.”

    Williamson correctly claims that, “The Commission has allegedly discriminated against its Black, Muslim, and disabled staff, and many of its Commissioners have links to the Conservative Party (as well as being affected by seemingly endless other conflicts of interest). I had, therefore, anticipated the EHRC would include me in their investigation. After all, I had been a wholehearted supporter of Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership, and had already been subjected to a vociferous smear campaign by the Conservatives, the Israel lobby, and opponents of greater democracy in the Labour Party.”

    Williamson points to his, “…opposition to the anti-Palestinian IHRA ‘working definition’ of anti-Semitism – and my support for anti-Zionists and left-wing Jews who had been hounded out of the Party – had brought down an avalanche of smears on me. This smear campaign was not merely an attempt to damage my reputation and unseat me from office, it was also designed to make an example out of me to anti-Zionists everywhere. This Zionist strategy, which takes a maximalist and belligerent approach in its defence of the State of Israel, has largely worked. Many people have been paralysed by the fear of being labelled an ‘anti-Semite’, and deterred from speaking up for Palestinians or even voicing the most basic truths about the ‘anti-Semitism crisis’. It is important to understand the Commission’s investigation in the context of this wider Zionist strategy which, in this instance, saw an arm of the state – the EHRC – being co-opted to serve their perverse aims.”

    Williamson asserts that, “The EHRC’s report is an astonishing document, and is flawed in several ways. Firstly, it fails to even consider the approach and motivations of the CAA as a complainant, and the resultant impact on the credibility of the material submitted on its behalf. The CAA has not been shy about making its political motivations clear, and their conduct has been suspect to say the least. In 2018, the Charity Commission required the CAA to amend a petition calling for Jeremy Corbyn to resign. They responded to this by amending the petition title to ‘Jeremy Corbyn is an antisemite and is unfit to hold any public office’. The Charity Commission is also investigating the CAA about its campaigning during the 2019 general election and comments made afterwards.” Legitimate Registered Charities are expected to remain apolitical so any publically declared support of a political party or appeal to dissuade voting for a political party violates their charter.

    Williamson elaborates regarding their most rabid protagonist, “Joe Glasman, Head of Political and Government Investigations at the CAA, posted a https://www.facebook.com/electronicintifada/videos/524507598192800/ message after the 2019 general election. He offered his personal thanks to ‘every single person out there who actively resisted the anti-Semitism of Corbyn and the Labour Party and say well done – mazel tov – […] the beast is slain’. He also described Corbyn as being ‘slaughtered’. Moreover, the CAA may have committed data protection breaches through its evidence-gathering measures, but all these facts appear to have been disregarded by the Commission.” For EHRC to have openly accepted the accusations of an individual with such clearly professed political motivations to defame and destroy a despised opponent, demonstrates appallingly bad judgement with an investigation built on hate speech. Not exactly a shining example of ‘Equality’ or the protection of ‘Human Rights’ which is why the EHRC must be robustly challenged.

    Williamson points out how EHRC have strayed well beyond their remit to define issues that are not within their purview to define. He says, “Throughout the report, the EHRC has drawn conclusions on what is and is not anti-Semitic, in circumstances where it has no legal power to do so. In addition, the Commission fails to give a definition of anti-Semitism in the report itself, and seems to proceed from the assumption that anything it considers to be anti-Semitism is anti-Semitism. This attempt by the Commission to go beyond its own statutory powers illustrates the McCarthyite nature of the report, which has seemingly twisted established legal norms in order to reach predetermined conclusions.” This overreach would be impossible to defend in a Court of law and EHRC must be hoping that they have discreetly averted Chris Williamson’s threatened Judicial Review. I certainly hope that he proceeds or is at least instrumental in persuading other targeted Labour members to do so, as this is urgently needed to restore justice.

    Williamson highlights the fact that, “The EHRC also omits one of the most crucial factors in how anti-Semitism complaints have been dealt with in the Party: internal factionalism. The report speaks about ‘a failure of leadership’ but does not properly explore the systematic attacks levelled from within the Party against Jeremy Corbyn. The leaked Labour report from earlier this year laid bare, for all to see, the extent of duplicity and scheming against the Corbyn leadership, including the weaponisation of anti-Semitism. Yet, the Commission does not factor this into its conclusions.” Although Captain of Capitulation, Labour’s new Leader Keir Starmer refused to submit the internal report, as commissioned in direct response to a request from EHRC, they received a full unredacted copy from Craig Murray. Aside from the factional sabotage documented in the leaked report, Starmer’s dire reluctance to include this evidence should have aroused extreme suspicion; although submitted by a third party it was still valid evidence.

    Considering the huge membership of the Labour Party, the largest Socialist Party in Europe, Williamson also questions the tiny sample of cases as not representational. He says, “On top of this – despite cries about ‘institutional anti-Semitism’, a ‘crisis’, and a supposed ‘existential threat to British Jews’ – the EHRC bases its report on a miniscule sample of 70 complaint investigation files made over a three-year period. The Commission’s unlawful act notice is based on tenuous examples of ‘indirect discrimination’, as well as the comments of a retired and elderly politician and four other individuals occupying low-level roles whose existence is probably unknown to most of the general public. Whilst I imagine this report will in many ways be a disappointment to the Israel lobby, and anticlimactic for everyone else, it has ultimately served its purpose. It has played a vital role in delegitimizing socialists in the Party, and will now function to encourage the permanent Zionist assault on all those who oppose them.”

    In the Skwawkbox Article entitled, “So which is it, Keir? Was suspending Corbyn Evans’s decision – or YOUR ‘difficult decision’ and ‘leadership’?” It is a fair question and one that requires answering honestly as they say, “Keir Starmer can’t seem to make his mind up. On the BBC’s Marr show this morning, he insisted that the decision to suspend Jeremy Corbyn last week was made by general secretary David Evans – and that the EHRC report forbids Labour’s political leadership from interfering. But on the radio, while he repeated the Evans line initially, when he was offered a chance to boast about how the suspension would be a defining moment (he likes moments) in his tenure, he couldn’t resist, claiming that: ‘I’m not going to shy away from difficult decisions. That’s what leadership is, difficult decisions. We made a very difficult decision.’ So which was it, Keir? Was it you? Was it Evans? Was it ‘we’? Didn’t you really just do what the EHRC says is forbidden and influence a disciplinary decision?“ The public demand to know!

    Skwawkbox also point out another really inconvenient fact, that, “the EHRC say that Corbyn has a legally-protected right to say what he said anyway?” Starmer is too cowardly to admit that he had been plotting Corbyn’s shameful demise since the second he managed to con Labour members into voting for him as the ‘unity candidate!’ Just like Boris Johnson he will make false promises, lie and throw anyone who stands in the way of his naked ambition under the bus. Tories chose wisely when were seeking a Trojan horse to destroy the Labour Party from within on their behalf! The progressive Left Labour movement has been forced into retreat, coerced into bit just accepting but endorsing the Tory propaganda that has enabled the Tories to cling to power since the Covert 2019 Rigged Election. The result was not just dubious but totally unfathomable, but it has remained unchallenged emboldening those who used industrial scale fraud to steal the vote. Enough is enough, we must demand a Investigation into the stolen Election. As Williamson says, “Now is the time to fight back.” DO NOT MOVE ON!

    #62033 Reply
    Kim Sanders-Fisher

    In his recent post, “Time to Stand up and be Counted” Craig Murray’s response to the EHRC Report and the suspension of Jeremy Corbyn directly homed in on the real target being sidelined by all the political grandstanding of Sir Keir Starmer: the Palestinian people. He wrote, “Today, nothing is more important than to say that we will not be silent on the dreadful oppression of the Palestinian people; the daily beatings, killings, humiliations, demolitions, expropriations and destruction of groves that are the concomitant of Israeli illegal occupation. We will never be browbeaten into silence on the slow genocide of the Palestinian people. Nobody with any grasp on the location of their right mind believes Jeremy Corbyn to be an anti-Semite. Nobody with any grasp on their right mind believes the Labour Party is now anything but the substitutes’ bench for the Neoconservative team.” Starmer has pledged the unquestioning commitment of the Labour Party to the ruthless genocidal goals and expansionist plans of Zionist Israel!

    On their website the beleaguered and suppressed Palestinian Solidarity Campaign battle for recognition of their most basic Human Rights. In the reasonable and measured, “PSC’s Response to the Publication of the EHRC Report” they understandably stress the “Palestine Solidarity Campaign’s work for the rights and freedoms of the Palestinian people is rooted in opposition to all forms of racism. This involves not only challenging and opposing individual prejudice but any belief or ideology that suggests people have superiority over others based on race, ethnicity, culture or religion, and any laws and policies that might flow from such thinking. Our commitment to tackling racism in all its forms has led us to make a number of statements and interventions on the question of how antisemitism should be tackled.”

    The PSC assert that, “We have been driven to do so because of our specific concern about the conflation of antisemitism with legitimate criticisms of the oppression of the Palestinian people by the laws, policies, and acts of successive Israeli governments. The public debate around these issues, as conducted through the media, particularly in relation to the question of antisemitism in the Labour Party has become toxic in a way that not only degrades political discourse but seriously disrupts a coherent response to racism. These issues have now again come to the fore in the aftermath of the publication of the EHRC report. We will not comment on the detail of the report nor on the broader issues of the investigation. This is not the gate speech of radical Islam, but the genuine concerns of ordinary very tolerant British citizens seeking acceptable of their right to protest the persecution of their people under authoritarian Israeli occupation and the right for Labour Party members to champion their cause without facing persecutiom.”

    The PSC state that, “We do believe that simply dismissing all allegations of antisemitism within the Labour Party as a smear is a form of denial that contributes to the problem. Such denial may represent a form of antisemitism in itself in so far as it is motivated by a desire to minimise and denigrate the real and lived experiences of Jewish people. However, we also challenge any notion that it is unacceptable to highlight media reporting that has served to mislead public opinion on the number of cases of antisemitism in the Labour Party. People should not be censured for such legitimate commentary, as has happened with Jeremy Corbyn. Jeremy Corbyn has been a consistent voice advocating for the rights of Palestinians and other oppressed people for many years and we are proud to have him as one of PSC’s Patrons.”

    But in an entirely reasonable qualification of that statement the PSC say, “We also believe that it is a demonstrable truth that the real existence of antisemitism within the Labour Party has been used by some groups and individuals within the Party as part of a factional battle and by some outside of it for political gain. It is wrong to seek to proscribe the stating of such truths or to define them as inherently antisemitic.” They say that, “PSC’s central concern remains the conflation of antisemitism with legitimate criticism of the acts, policies, laws and constitutional order of the state of Israel. We note that the Labour Party is now required by the EHRC to draw up an action plan that includes the need to make clear precisely how it will define and understand antisemitism.”

    They assert that, “PSC has addressed many times its concerns regarding the examples attached to the IHRA definition that conflate criticism of Israel with antisemitism. These concerns are shared by the Institute of Race Relations; eminent legal experts including ex-Court of Appeal Judge Sir Stephen Sedley; Liberty; leading academic experts on anti-Semitism Anthony Lerman and Brian Klug; 40 global Jewish social justice organisations, and more than 80 UK-based BAME groups. We note that in its report, the EHRC made specific references to the concerns that have been expressed about the examples attached to the IHRA definition, and the view of the Home Affairs Select Committee of the need for caveats to protect freedom of expression.”

    PSC state that, “Recently, UK based Palestinians wrote an open letter to the Labour Party that highlighted concerns about how the examples within the IHRA have been used to suppress the ability of Palestinians to express the truths of their own history and their ongoing oppression. They reiterated the call for “the right of Palestinians to accurately describe our experiences of dispossession and oppression, to criticise the nature and structure of the state that continues to oppress us and to openly criticise the ideology of Zionism which informs the actions, policies and laws of that state, be upheld both as a right of a people under oppression and as a right of freedom of expression respected and supported by the Labour Party leadership. Furthermore, the rights of other British citizens to respond to calls for action including via the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions Movement to address that oppression, should also be supported and upheld.”

    PSC assert that, “In order to uphold this right, the Labour Party must make clear in its response to the EHRC recommendations that it will take action to ensure that these core rights, as recognised in Article 10 of the Human Rights Act, will be protected. Without such action, Palestinians in the Labour Party will not feel they have a safe space to articulate the truths of their lived experiences of injustice, and supporters of justice for the Palestinian people will not feel protected in their right to freely express the need for the Party to take action to ensure that these injustices are addressed. The support offered to the Palestinian people by the UK labour movement has been crucial. PSC welcomed the motion recently passed by the TUC which committed it to ongoing action to oppose Israel’s plans for annexation of further areas of the West Bank which the TUC defined as ‘another significant step in the creation of a system of apartheid’.”

    PSC say that, “We stand ready to support the Labour Party and all other political parties, institutions, and public bodies in taking the necessary action in support of the core rights of the Palestinian people as an oppressed people, rooted in international law, and the rights of those advocating on their behalf in the UK.” Sadly this is just one of several oppressed people being ignored by this hard right war-mongering Tory Government and their centrist enablers who have tried to seize control of the Labour Party. Their ideals do not represent the majority opinion among the membership of the Labour Party, not on the Palestinian issue, supplying arms to Saudi Arabia to bomb Yemen, or the oppression of other minority people globally. From Israel to Iran to Venezuela the Government is getting foreign policy wrong and we desperately need a change of direction that will not be led by Keir Starmer! Realistically we need to go beyond the goal of ousting this Tory Government to removing destructive elements in the Labour Party.

    In his no holes bared Interview with RT Posted on Facebook, outspoken former Labour MP and strident activist Chris Williamson blurts out the disgraceful truth about fantisemitism and the EHRC Report. Williamson boldly asserts that, “This is about stopping free speech on Israel’ | Former MP Chris Williamson on EHRC report.” As one of the Labour members targeted and driven out of the Labour Party during the ongoing witch-hunt, Williamson did not go quietly; when falsely accused by EHRC he was determined to robustly challenge defamatory accusations. The EHRC backed down because they knew their flimsy ‘smoke and mirrors’ case would not hold up in Court. He proved that fighting back is the only option and in all probability the Labour Party can no longer be salvaged; we cannot afford to be overly sentimental about ditching a Labour Party that no longer espouses true Socialist values.

    EHRC’s ruling will cruelly imperil Palestinian rights; back in mid September a group of influential Palestinians living in the UK wrote an “Open Letter to the Labour Party” on behalf of British Palestinians that Jewish Voice for Labour (jvl) posted on their website. Jvl included the following introductory comment: “British Palestinians write to the Labour Party, expressing their fears about the closing political space for talking both about Palestinian history and about their ongoing dispossession. In the face of the IHRA definition and more, they assert their right ‘to accurately describe our experiences of dispossession and oppression, to criticise the nature and structure of the state that continues to oppress us and to openly criticise the ideology of Zionism which informs the actions, policies and laws of that state’.” They call for “solidarity with Palestinians fighting their oppression, including support for action via the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions Movement.” This article was originally published by Medium on Wed 16 Sep 2020.

    In the “Open Letter to the Labour Party by British Palestinians,” printed by Medium they present their case: “We write as British Palestinians. Many of us are members of the Labour Party, some are not. We have previously expressed our fears of how the space to publicly bring the facts of the Palestinian people’s history and ongoing dispossession into the public domain was under severe threat. Then, as now, our concerns were rooted in a clear opposition to antisemitism believing that, alongside all forms of racism, it should not be tolerated within the Labour Party, the Palestinian solidarity movement, nor broader society. We write now to address our specific concerns relating to developments within the Labour party since that time.

    We believe that an internationalist Labour Party has a special responsibility to redress the ongoing injustices against the Palestinian people, denied their right to self-determination during the British Mandate because of the role Britain played as a colonial power leading up to the 1948 Nakba, when Palestinians were forcibly displaced from their homes. We welcome commitments made by the party, at recent party Conferences, including rejection of Trump’s so-called “deal of the century” and any proposed solution not based on recognition of the Palestinian people’s inalienable right to self-determination and to return to their homes as enshrined in international law. We welcome the call by the Leadership team for a ban on settlement goods in response to Israel’s proposals to annex further swathes of Palestinian lands, including illegal settlements.

    However, we remain deeply concerned about steps being taken which will only serve to shrink the space in the Labour party for British Palestinians and other members to assert their rights to campaign for an end to the oppression of the Palestinian people.
    We respectfully but unequivocally reject any assertion that dealing with antisemitism must necessarily reverse policy commitments to protect Palestinian rights. Respect for Palestinian rights is not incompatible with the struggle against racism and antisemitism; in fact, it is integral to that struggle. We are extremely concerned by any conflation of anti-Zionism with antisemitism. Zionism is a political ideology and movement that has led to our dispossession and that sustains a state that discriminates against us and denies us our collective rights whether as victims of military occupation, unequal citizens of the Israeli state or living in exile as refugees denied the right of return to our homeland.

    Benjamin Netanyahu recently described the proposed annexation of further swathes of the West Bank, a proposal rightly condemned by the Labour Party, as “ another glorious chapter in the history of Zionism”. We cannot but reject this ideology and to deny us the right to do so is a form of anti Palestinian racism. We note with concern statements made by the Labour leadership affirming support for the usage of the IHRA definition and examples, including within Labour Party disciplinary procedures, without reference to the concerns regarding the threat those examples pose to the rights of Palestinians and to party members advocating for justice for the Palestinian people. We are alarmed to note the stated intention of the Shadow Communities Secretary to urge all Labour-run councils who have not adopted the IHRA to do so, ignoring the evidence of how councils have previously used the IHRA to limit the rights of Palestinians, and of others advocating on their behalf.

    In 2018 the Palestine Solidarity Campaign and the British Palestinian Policy Council made submissions to the NEC that called upon the Labour party to confirm its unequivocal commitment to the principles of freedom of expression as outlined in Article 10 of the Human Rights Act. They called upon the party to recognise the right of Palestinians to legitimately describe their experiences of oppression including by reference to terms such as settler-colonialism or apartheid. These submissions joined warnings of the threats posed by the IHRA examples to core Palestinian rights and to freedom of expression from Palestinian civil society as well as over 80 BAME organisations, including Black Lives Matter UK, prominent members of the Jewish community, leading lawyers and academic experts on antisemitism and the Institute for Race Relations.

    We reiterate our call that the right of Palestinians to accurately describe our experiences of dispossession and oppression, to criticise the nature and structure of the state that continues to oppress us and to openly criticise the ideology of Zionism which informs the actions, policies and laws of that state, be upheld both as a right of a people under oppression and as a right of freedom of expression respected and supported by the Labour Party leadership. Furthermore, the rights of other British citizens to respond to calls for action including via the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions Movement to address that oppression, should also be supported and upheld.” This letter was signed by the following members of the Palestinian community.

    “Dr Hafiz Alkarmi, Chairman of the Palestinian Forum in Britain; Iyas Alqasem, Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC) exec and founder and trustee of Hope and Play charity for Palestinian children; Omar Al-Qattan, Businessman and Philanthropist; Sawsan Asfari, Executive director of the Galilee Foundation; Tamara Ben-Halim, Human Rights Advocate; Zaher Birawi Chairman, Europal Forum; Selma Dabbagh, Author; Professor Izzat Darwazeh, UCL; Professor Kamel; Hawwash, University of Birmingham; Feras Abu Helal, Editor-in-chief, Journalist; Nadia Hijab, President, Palestinian think tank; Ben Jamal, Director PSC; Dr Ghada Karmi, Institute of Arab and Islamic Studies, University of Exeter; Dr Ahmad Khalidi — St Antony’s College, Oxford; Chris Khamis, Labour International; Omar Mofeed, Ealing central and Acton constituency Labour Party ( CLP); Adnan Sabbah, Lawyer; Atallah Said OBE, Former Chair, British Palestinian Policy Council; Ali Saleh, President of the (Association of the Palestinian Community in the UK (APCUK); Kareem Samara, Composer/Musician; Aimee Shalan, Humanitarian and human rights advocate; Professor Suleiman Sharkh, University of Southampton.”

    On the Website RS21 “Revolutionary Socialism in the 21st. Century” they also express their courageous solidarity support on the 19th of September by publishing the same letter of appeal in a post entitled, “Open letter: Palestinians in Britain demand freedom of speech. They report that, ‘The Labour Party’s willingness to censor criticism of Israel gives license to a broader crackdown on anti-racist, anti-Zionist speech across society. Palestinians in Britain are the first victims of this censorship, and are leading the fightback against it. We republish below an open letter from a number of Palestinians in Britain. The letter was originally written to protest the Labour Party’s ongoing moves to silence and suppress criticism of Israel within the party, including the party’s support for the discredited IHRA definition of antisemitism’.”

    RS21 state that, “Since it was written the letter has itself been effectively embargoed and marginalised by several Labour Party-aligned publications who were approached to publish it, despite the letter’s careful language and moderate political tenor.” They call out publications that should have demonstrated fairness and impartiality, but failed in their duty, saying, “LabourList and the New Statesman refused to publish the piece; Tribune, a publication associated with the left wing of Labour, has ignored the piece for two months, despite repeated inquiries by its own former editor, Mark Seddon. We republish this letter here in solidarity with all Palestinians and in defence of the right to oppose Israeli apartheid and settler-colonialism. As the letter-writers comment: ‘Zionism is a political ideology and movement that has led to our dispossession and that sustains a state that discriminates against us and denies us our collective rights…We cannot but reject this ideology and to deny us the right to do so is a form of anti Palestinian racism’.”

    For the Labour Party to abandon support of the Palestinian cause would represent a severe betrayal of not just the Palestinian people, but also an abandonment of the consensus opinions of the Labour Party membership regarding the Party stance on Middle East policy. It would represent the unambiguous acceptance of global Corporate expansion and exploitation of developing nations to the detriment of local and indigenous people worldwide. This represents a complete capitulation of Labour values. A genuinely committed Socialist Party cannot simply decide to abandon one sector of its population and maintain credibility as a movement; so we must judge the Labour Party accordingly. But the majority are the instrument of change and we must fight to eradicate policies that do not reflect the Socialist ideal. We cannot accept the propaganda that our radical Left agenda lost the Covert 2019 Rigged Election; we must challenge the industrial scale fraud with a full Investigation to force the Tory Party and their enablers out of office! DO NOT MOVE ON!

    #62074 Reply
    Kim Sanders-Fisher

    The ‘Wild West’ stand–off continues as the US Election remains undecided with the counting continuing in several states despite Trump’s desperate attempts to end the process in realization that the numbers are moving in the wrong direction that will likely prevent him from remaining in power. The Democrats cannot possibly be thrilled with this result even if they manage to shoehorn their thoroughly unpopular Biden/Harris team into the White House. But they brought this dismal result on themselves, deliberately sabotaging Bernie Sanders and selecting the worst possible substitute to ditch voter priorities for Corporate cash. If Biden crawls over the finish line barely ahead of the most vilified President in US history he will do so with an albatross of shame hung around his neck, the US Senate controlled by the Republicans and the Supreme Court dominated by right wing Trump appointees. Biden is too flattered by the illusion of DNC support to realize he’s no more to them than a hopelessly inept temporary place-holder!

    The DNC are looking straight past Biden’s pathetic grasp on reality, that’s dwindling by the day, and banking on their choice for VP who, despite ticking the right gender and ethnicity boxes, has still managed to gain their confidence based on her despicably harsh prosecution record. She has convinced them that they can rely on her to become the perfectly compliant neo-con stooge ready to replace Biden when they are ready to declare him unfit for office or if he should conveniently pop his clogs before they need to oust him. As is the case with other female leaders, ruthlessly ambitious and totally devoid of human empathy, just like the last DNC pick, Hilary Clinton, Harris can be persuaded to go to war when the Military Industrial Complex require a new ‘foreign intervention!’ She will be unflinching in her stubborn resistance to any increase in Social programs, even those that might benefit ethnic minorities or vulnerable women. Harris isn’t governed by conscience, sentimentality, justice or equality: she is determined to be number one!

    The challenge from Bernie Sanders was seen off once again after humouring him for a while in the US Primaries; he can be relied upon as a useful generator of youth support and enthusiasm until it’s time for the DNC to take control of the voting just as they have done before. Bernie Sanders should have joined the Greens last time instead of trying to rescue DNC disaster candidate Hilary Clinton, but he fell for the exact same trick yet again with false promises of Presidential support for the progressive agenda that America is so desperate for. Just as this would never have materialized under Clinton it is just as doomed under Biden and Harris when she is shoved to the fore. The group of progressive young women now nicknamed “the Squad” remain an annoying embarrassment to the centrist Democrats, but just like Sanders they draw in young voters and idealistic minorities ready to get shafted by the DNC at the next election. Craig Murray was right to see both US candidates as equally toxic to genuine democracy!

    In essence we have followed a very similar model here in the UK, suppressing the progressive Socialist candidate Jeremy Corbyn, who was such a popular and inspirational leader of the Labour Party that it was invigorated to become the largest Socialist Party in Europe. Now there will be a dramatic retraction as the now thoroughly discredited Labour Party shrivels down to become the Tory lite, weak centrist, non-alternative under the Captain of Capitulation Keir Starmer’s enabling opposition. The Tories faithful Trojan horse will relentlessly purge this disgusting incarnation of ‘New Labour’ of all the progressive left leaning MPs using the favoured weapon of fantisemitism to remove them from the Party. Despite a massive lurch to the right Starmer can expect little more than to enter an election as the ‘not as bad as Johnson/Cummings and the Tories’ option he thinks will be enough after five years more Tory austerity under some deceptive new name as they will undoubtedly continue their ‘Decimating Down’ agenda of exploitation.

    This assumption that there will be a free and fair election after we have endured another four years of needless Tory misery, is in itself totally delusional. The Tory manifesto pledged to abolish the Fixed Term Parliament Act, but conveniently failed to elaborate on what might replace it. After the Covert 2019 Rigged Election, the stolen Tory majority in Parliament, now with a stranglehold on power, can vote to break the law or condone criminality exactly as they see fit! In order to retain the Tory whip, allegiance to our newly anointed Dictator must be absolute; Tory MPs are completely devoid of independent, conscientious decision making. The same Tory Government who ran into resistance proroguing Parliament for their own devious ends now seek to severely curtail the nuisance of Judicial Review and hand pick Justices who will support their agenda: what else did we expect from this new Tory Dictatorship? If any elections are allowed they will be purely cosmetic and timed to boost Tory support under a warped set of rules.

    We cannot afford to ignore the troubling shifts in UK demographics and how the Tory Party is responding to such changes. You might have thought the Tories would want to continue protecting their most reliable voting demographic: the elderly. Sadly for those in this age range we are the most costly and consistent benefit recipients after paying into the system for decades. If you consider how Covid 19 has been appallingly mishandled it appears to represent the intentional annihilation of those unfortunate enough to be residing in care homes the ‘’holocaust in care’ in the UK. There has been an intentional extermination of the elderly and most vulnerable in general during the Covid crisis, a systematic cull that I call the ‘Slaughter if the Sheeple.’ This is the single strongest indicator that the Tory Party no longer needs their votes because they fully intend to rig the system. Yes but… surely you want to attract young, highly motivated voters from ethnically diverse communities? They too are surplus to requirement in a Dictatorship!

    We must not allow fabricated accusations of fantisemitism to decimate the only significantly numerous opposition to the Tories in Parliament. This has been deliberately weaponized to eviscerate the progressive Labour Left through manipulation of the media on behalf of the Tory Party. There is no point transforming Labour into what the media insist will be a more electable political Party if there is no realistic prospect of a meaningful election possible for decades; it is far better to robustly challenge the Tories before they are able to solidify this coup. That starts with changing the narrative, calling out the ‘borrowed votes’ lie and the fake ‘landslide victory’ claimed by the Tory Party in the Covert 2019 Rigged Election. Unfortunately we do not yet have a champion Investigative reporter like Greg Palast actively working our case, but we must try to bring one onboard. Meanwhile we cannot give up ranting about the need for a full Investigation of the Covert 2019 Rigged Election to overturn this disastrous vote and oust the Tories. ;

    The US Election has clearly shown that even in the largest and most respected democracy in the world, serious corruption is a distinct possibility; the stakes were a lot higher in America, but they were really considerable here given the chaos that this Tory Government has precipitated with crash-out Brexit. Undermining the commercial viability of the EU as a trading block is significant motivation for malign foreign entities to push the UK towards a catastrophic Brexit disaster. If the British public are too stupid to avert this disastrous act of self-harm we will suffer the consequences for decades. We can still derail this disaster, but the window of opportunity for acting decisively will soon close. The dire corruption we have witnessed in the US that removed the Presidential choice that would have restored equality and justice for ordinary American citizens should function as a wake-up call; we do not have to accept similar tyranny here. Biden will endorse more Corporate exploitation just as Starmer will promote here in the UK. DO NOT MOVE ON!

    #62107 Reply
    Kim Sanders-Fisher

    In the UK we are still looking on, baffled by the protracted process of counting votes to determine the US Presidency, but why should we be concerned? The so called battle-ground States still in contention share a dirty secret that is not much talked of in the news reports, but it represents a style of corruption that could soon be emulated by Tories desperate to cling to power despite the damage they have caused. Trump is actually right in saying the US election is rigged, but in reality it has been Republicans doing the rigging; they might not have fully succeeded in their efforts to keep Trump in power. The count continues in Georgia with Biden edging into a slim lead, but why was this count so heavily pro-Trump in the first place? An OpenDemocracy Article entitled, “How the Republicans are stealing Georgia,” examines key extracts from the Greg Palast Book, “How Trump stole 2020.” They report how, “Hundreds of thousands of people of colour have had their names erased from the voter list in this vital state.”

    Palast wrote, “It was raining that day in Atlanta. But I could see the large tears tracking down the face of Christine Jordan’s niece. ‘It’s horrible,’ she said. Ms. Jordan, 92 years old, had dressed elegantly for the occasion, her 50th year at the same polling station, ‘voting right here since 1968,” Ms Jordan said, the year her cousin Martin Luther King Jr. was gunned down. But she would not vote this time. They threw her out of the polling station. ‘It’s horrible,’ repeated her niece, Jessica. ‘It’s horrible to come out and not be able to vote and no one can give you an explanation. She held civil rights meetings in her home and they had no record of her. She was here in the West End community when we couldn’t…’ She choked on the word ‘vote.’ ‘It’s extremely emotional. And it bothers me. Bothers me to my core. I’m sorry.’ She apologized for crying. ‘I’m sorry’.” He wrote, “I’m an investigative reporter. I don’t cry. But it bothered me, too. Because I knew I was witnessing more than the ugly Jim Crow blockade of an elderly Black woman from the ballot box.”

    “I knew I was witnessing the successful test run in Georgia of a new vote-snatching game designed to re-elect Donald Trump no matter the will of America’s voters.” Palast recalled, “I’ve seen this movie before. In November 2000, when I got my hands on two computer discs from inside the offices of Katherine Harris, chair of the Bush for President campaign, and crucially, the Secretary of State of Florida, the person in charge of the voting. I cracked the codes, and discovered that Harris had flushed 97,000 voters from registration rolls, most of them Black, tagging them as felons, ex-cons, who can’t vote. In fact, the number of illegal ex-con voters? Zero. Their only crime was VWB, Voting While Black. Harris announced George W. Bush had won Florida, and therefore the presidency of the United States, by just 537 votes. That is, ‘won’ by excluding the tens of thousands of African-Americans she’d secretly, illegally, barred from voting.” That was Bush who got Tony Blair to drag us into an illegal foreign war so don’t just shrug!

    Palast wrote, “Here I was in Georgia, 18 years later, and it’s déjàvu all over again. Again. Raheim Shabazz was at the same polling station as Ms Jordan. He’d also been given the heave-ho. He got no ballot, but they did give him a lapel sticker that said, ‘I’m a Georgia voter!’ printed on a peach, the state fruit. At the next polling station, Ashlee Jones, a Latina, brought her three cute daughters to watch her get bounced from the poll as well. Bounced along with Yasmine Bakhtiari, daughter of Iranian immigrants, whose name had also vanished from voter rolls. Dark-hued voters, by the tens of thousands, flushed from voter registries. The Purged. They didn’t accuse Ms. Jordan of being a felon, an ex-con. So what was this new game?”

    Palast vividly describes, “The Purge’n General, Brian Kemp stood next to his pick-up truck. ‘Ah like to blow up…’ Ka-blamm! A dynamite cap spews a part of his lawn into his hedges. ‘…government spending!’ Next we see Kemp with a shotgun pointed at a nervous young man to ensure the kid has ‘a healthy respect for the Second Amendment’.” For those not so familiar with the US Constitution, that’s the right to ‘bear arms’ carry guns. Palast notes, “He adds in his brand-new Dawg Patch accent, ‘I got a Big Truck just in case I have to round up some criminal illegal’s and take’m in myself! I just said that!’ Brian Kemp isn’t some redneck goober. He just plays one on TV. Until recently, he dressed as what he is, landed gentry, with that soft Jimmy Carter New South accent, Brooks Brothers blue suit and tie. But, running for governor of the Peach State, he went full hayseed: old jeans, plaid shirts, pick-up truck and shotgun, and the yokels ate it up.”

    But Palast reports, “Kemp had a problem: Stacey Abrams, his opponent, a super-popular legislator, Harvard Law grad, both parents Baptist ministers, the daughter every parent dreams of, the nice lady next door, the kind that will help your kid with their homework. No visible shotgun, no chainsaw, just a plan for expanding health care. In the polls, Abrams was passing Kemp’s alien laden pick-up truck.” Palast added, “Kemp had another problem: demographics. A lack of Good Ol’ Boys. The census is about to list Georgia as the first ‘minority majority’ state in the Deep South, whites outnumbered by non-whites. He wrote, “As the first African-American woman in history to run for governor of any state in the USA, the Black turn-out would be crushing and decisive.” I have to note that, Stacy Abrams was on the list of Biden’s potential VP picks, but while her gender and ethnicity would have garnered minority votes her track record of conscience and integrity would have presented a problem for the Corporate paymasters of the DNC.

    Palast wrote, “Bluntly, there simply weren’t enough white people to make Kemp governor. But Kemp wielded a dark weapon more powerful than mere voters. As Secretary of State, Kemp had complete authority over the election. Kemp could say where people vote, how they vote and, most importantly, who gets to vote. There’s a cable TV show, The Purge, in which Americans in the future get one day a year when they can kill anyone they want to kill. It’s based on a true story. Once a year, since the beginning of this century, a group of political hitmen, ‘Secretaries of State,’ are allowed to wipe out the voting rights of Americans by ‘purging’ them from the voter rolls. As the Purge’n General of Georgia, Kemp used his power like a chainsaw. In the lead-up to his run for governor, Kemp purged 665,677, two-thirds of a million registrations. The Purge erased the voting rights of one in eight Georgians. Including Ms Jordan, Mr Shabazz, Ms Jones and Ms Bakhtiari.”

    Consider aggressive US attacks on Venezuela’s election as corrupt despite experts like former President Jimmy Carter hailing it as one of the safest voting systems in the world. I’m shocked by this corruption, but Palast says, “If you’re thinking, ‘How can this guy run for governor and be in charge of his own election?,’ you’ve never been to Georgia.” He says, “I admit, I’m a suspicious man. I’d been trailing Kemp, for Al Jazeera and Rolling Stone, for six years. His trick-bag of vote suppression tools, including prior purges that smelled of Jim Crow, kept drawing me back to Georgia. But this Purge was breathtaking, something new. Surely, there must be a law to prevent someone like Kemp from just taking away your registration? Yes: the National Voter Registration Act of 1993, known as the Motor Voter law because it requires states to give out registration forms with your driver’s license applications. Every DMV becomes a safe voter registration center. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 won African-Americans the right to vote in the South”

    But Palast points out, “you can’t vote if you aren’t registered, so the NVRA jammed registration right down the throats of states that still made voting for Black people a cruel obstacle course. Not that the Good Ol’ Boys hadn’t come up with a way around the Motor Voter law. I’d just returned from a visit to the DMV in Lowndes County, Alabama. The door was locked, midday. The DMV had been closed by order of the state, as was virtually every single DMV in the ‘Black Belt’ counties of Alabama, the African-American counties. Kemp himself was even less subtle. When a registration drive sent Georgia officials 86,419 registration forms of new voters, mostly young students of color, Kemp simply did not add 40,000 of them to the voter rolls. In 2016, I flew to Atlanta to find out what the hell was going on.”

    Palast reports, “I met attorney Nse Ufot: ‘You know what [Kemp’s office] told us? ‘We don’t know what you’re talking about. What forms?’ They did not disappear. We intentionally registered voters on paper forms so that we could make copies. We knew who they were. They were not on the voter rolls.’ Kemp responded by threatening to arrest the voter registration leaders, including the founder, Stacey Abrams, for alleged criminal tampering of voter registration forms. That is, they copied the forms so Kemp couldn’t disappear them. Ufot saw the registrations sitting in government offices, piled high and dusty, ‘with my own four eyes’ (she wears glasses). Once the forms were ‘discovered,’ Kemp’s office then claimed the government simply had no time to review the voter applications. That was 2014. In 2018, four years later, and running against Abrams, Kemp still had not found time to add her voters.”

    Palast cynically refers to it as “Lynched by Laptop,” but questions, “How’d he get away with it? Pull off the caper? How did Mr. ‘I-got-a-big-truck’ remove way over half a million voters, a nuclear hit on the registration rolls that somehow targeted Black, Hispanic and young voters with a laser-like precision? And how did he do it and stay on this side of prison bars? Palast asks, “how, with this giant voter eraser, did Kemp snatch the governorship of Georgia, and, potentially, re-elect Donald Trump? His excuse was so benign, so innocent, so simple. The excuse the Purge’n General used to eliminate the registrations? Kemp kept the info locked up – but a federal judge unlocked them for me. Some Georgia voters had died (64,446 of them), some were imprisoned for felonies (14,021) and there were a few other smatterings of legit removals.” Palast and his team diligently sifted through the legitimate deletions, but a massive discrepancy remained unacounted for.

    Palast documented, “that left 534,510, over half a million purged, for a reason identified only as ‘System Cancels.’ They were cancelled by the system because they had failed to vote in two elections and hadn’t returned a postcard mailed to their registration address. On the basis of the missed elections and a missed postcard, Kemp concluded that every one of these half million voters had moved away: they had moved out of their county, or out of state or out of the country. Who can argue with that? Only a fool would say that someone who’s left Georgia for Ohio should stay on Georgia’s voter rolls. But something was missing. U-Haul trucks. I’d traveled to Georgia a number of times during The Big Purge. With half a million voters leaving – and that means hundreds of thousands of families moving in two years – Interstate Highway 85 out of Atlanta should have been filled with U-Haul trucks, mini-vans, rickshaws, anything that could carry the households of this mass exodus.”

    So what was the upshot of this alarming revelation? Palast reported that, “The press wrung their hands over this terrible mass purge but wrote it was legit. But no one asked, ‘Where are the U-Hauls?’ Riddle me this: The US Census says less than 3% of Southerners move out of their county in any year, or 200,000 of Georgia’s 6.8 million voters. You don’t have to be a math whiz to see the numbers don’t add up. I’m not Sherlock Holmes. I didn’t figure out the con in a flash of inductive reasoning after injecting a 7% solution of cocaine.” But Palast was not giving up. He said, “I started with Kemp’s office, with a formal Freedom of Information request. However, in Georgia, information has not yet been emancipated. ‘Please, sir, could you give me the names of the voters you purged and their former addresses?’ just didn’t cut it. Kemp’s office told me to fly’.”

    Palast reminds us of the resources at his disposal, “Now, as an investigative reporter, I have a few (legal) tricks and a team of experienced tricksters. The best, Zach D. Roberts, who, conveniently, has other legal names, had gotten a purge list from Kemp four years earlier. ZD told one of Kemp’s flunkies, a leader of the Young Republicans, that he was gathering info for a Fox radio show to run a glowing story about Kemp’s worthy purge operation. ZD did in fact do some work for Fox, but the lists would go first to a Rolling Stone reporter: me. You can’t pull that off twice. So, I wheeled out big guns: the New York law firm of Mirer, Mazzocchi and Julien. They filed an unprecedented lawsuit in federal court based on rarely used powers in the National Voter Registration Act. Kemp’s crew came out with their hands up and files open: turning over the names and addresses of half a million Georgians who had supposedly moved. The Purged.”

    There was a huge logistical problem ahead. Palast asks, “What could we do with half a million names? Start calling. We wanted to know, had they really left the state? There was Gladys Bonner, in an assisted living home, who had indeed moved – but from one room in her building to another. Under the law, she should never have lost her vote. And there were a whole lot of people like ML King’s cousin, who hadn’t moved at all.” Palast notes that, “Almost every one we reached was… well, not white. Hmmm. But this was anecdotal, a sample. I didn’t like the smell of Kemp’s purge, but a few cases do not an indictment make. So my investigations team created a computer program at GregPalast.com which allowed Georgians to see whether they were on Kemp’s purge list. We added a request at the site: contact us.”

    He says, “Within days 1,900 did, angry, upset that they lost their right to vote without so much as a posting on their Facebook page. Dawan Mitchell, returned from a tour of duty in Iraq, wrote us, telling us he did move… but into the state.” Palast wrote with disgust, “The smell of mendacity rose, but this still was not the scientific gotcha evidence I needed. How could I find out exactly how many on the list had actually moved, versus how many were simply re-moved by Kemp? Ask yourself, ‘Who knows exactly where every American lives, with 100% accuracy?’ And you know the answer: Amazon. eBay. Amazon never sends John Jackson another John Jackson’s pimple remover. Who else knows where you live, with certainty? American Express. Your friendly credit card company will find you in the far corners of North Korea if you try to skip out on your bill. So I turned to Mark Swedlund, a legend in the ‘direct marketing’ business, do not call it ‘junk mail’.”

    Palast adds an interesting anecdote regarding a previous collaboration with Swedlund saying that he, “had helped me out over the years, including setting up an elaborate false front for The Guardian. (We pretended to be fixers for a company called Enron and set out to buy the British government. It was surprisingly cheap. We were invited into prime minister Tony Blair’s residence at 10 Downing Street before we splashed the headline in The Guardian about the government’s flea market for favors.)” That must have been an embarrassing ‘egg on face’ moment for B liar so I’m really sorry I missed that one as I was living in the States back then. Palast wrote, “Swedlund’s clients included Amazon, eBay and American Express and he confirmed that ‘they know exactly where you were last Thursday, and if you ordered Chinese food and then downloaded a Kevin Costner movie.’ He added, ‘I think that’s creepy,’ but suggested we could use their tracking systems to go through Kemp’s purge list.”

    The investigative plot thickened as Palast recalls that, “For that, he said, you need to retain the services of someone called an ‘advanced address list hygiene expert.’ I’d never heard of ‘advanced address list hygiene.’ But Swedlund hooked me up with the best in the field, John Lenser, the CEO of the advanced address list hygiene company CohereOne, used by the industry big boys. Lenser and Swedlund put together a hell of a team, including a ‘de-concatenation’ specialist who picked apart the pile of computer mush Kemp’s flunkies had given us. What the Lenser/Swedlund team found was eye-popping. They went through Kemp’s purge list of half a million voters name by name, and the registration addresses of every person Kemp said had moved their residence. Lenser looked at tax bills, where someone last had pizza delivered, phone bills, your alimony checks… accessing two hundred and forty databases that can confirm where you reside with stone-cold accuracy.”

    Palast remarks how, “Notably, Mr. Kemp hadn’t bothered to ask why thousands of people had supposedly moved out of Georgia but were still paying Georgia income taxes. I lost the office pool. I expected about 15% inaccuracy in Kemp’s purge. I was wrong, big wrong. Lenser’s first report blew me away: 340,134 Georgians that had been purged for moving were, in fact, still living in the home in which they’d registered. Lenser told me, 340,000 of those voters remained at their original address. They should have never been removed from the voter registration rolls. More than a third of a million wrongly purged, in this one state. The list was more than 74% wrong. Three out of four.”

    Palast accurately documents that, “This was not a statistical sample, not an algorithm nor an estimate. This was a name-by-name investigation of those disappeared in plain sight. We were using Amazon’s method and Amazon, unlike the Pope, is infallible. (Actually, 96% accurate, according to Lenser. He told me his figures had a 4% error rate because, between gathering data and reporting it, people do pass on to another county or further: the Lenser team found that the state purged 19,118 folks who “moved,” but had, in fact, died.) After two decades on this beat, I knew what would come next. The Georgia vote purge game, spread to a dozen key states, would stealthily bleach the voter rolls whiter than white. The Purge, not the voters, could re-elect Donald Trump.” OpenDemocracy say they tried to “contact Brian Kemp for comment on the allegations on this piece.” if you think rigged elections are confined to tin-pot Dictatorships, Palast’s Book exposes democracy under siege in the US: our last vote was totally corrupt!

    Look at the horrendous consequences of the stolen US Presidential Election in 2000 with a usurper President that dragged us into the Iraq war and you can see why the integrity of voting is so important. The Republican tactics of disenfranchisement got Trump into the White House to wreck mayhem on world order, but Clinton could easily have launched another conflict. Here in the UK the Covert 2019 Rigged Election has had disastrous ramifications, notable with the shambolic mishandling of Covid, but there was no challenge to that vote, no Investigation and Johnson/Cummings are still taking a wrecking ball to our democracy. That Investigation needs to happen ASAP before it is too late as we hurtle towards crash-out Brexit. Such a profound economic shock to the UK will compound the extreme negative impact of Covid; this damage constitutes unsustainable self-harm especially to the working poor. Driven by ego, power and greed, electoral fraud will inevitably always lead to serious harm, we must correct this injustice now. DO NOT MOVE ON!

    #62120 Reply
    Kim Sanders-Fisher

    Boris Johnson sheepishly admitted that, “The whole House is talking about the result of a heavily contested election,” but instead of admitting his regret that his mate Trump was not in the lead the PM veered away from the issue to congratulate the Speaker on his one year anniversary; he needed to keep Hoyle on side. Making it clear who he was still routing for in the States he emulated that corny Trumpian chant by saying, “thank you, Mr Speaker, for making the speakership great again?” In reality things are not looking good for the hard-core Brexiteers ready to trash the Good Friday Agreement; now their planned crash-out Brexit might just scupper a US Trade deal with opposition from the White House as well as the Democratic Congress. But then Tory Andrew Jones started into the familiar pattern of ‘stroking’ by praising the Liverpool City wide testing trial; a PR red herring to placate the masses. How soon would it become a nationwide success? After two weeks we will know if this is just another costly Tory failure; I can’t wait…

    Keir Starmer began by focusing on the US Elections, warning, “Whatever the results, will the Prime Minister join me in saying that it is not for a candidate to decide which votes do and do not count or when to stop counting? The next President must be the free and fair choice of the American people.” By expressing his revulsion at the terrorist attacks in Nice and Vienna and sympathies for those affected he highlighted the PM neglecting to mention the incidents. He too congratulated the Speaker before reverting to a futile attempt to solicit contrition: “Turning now, if I may, to covid-19, on 21 September, when the Government’s scientific advisers indicated that a circuit break would bring the virus back under control, the number of people that day who tragically lost their lives to covid-19 was 11. The Prime Minister ignored that advice. On Monday, 42 days later, the number of people who tragically lost their lives to covid-19 was 397 – that is a staggering 35-fold increase. Does the Prime Minister understand the human cost of his delay in acting?”

    The PM’s defence was, “In answer to the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s opening question, of course we do not comment, as a UK Government, on the democratic processes of our friends and allies, and I do not think, in all seriousness, he would expect otherwise. Turning to the point about covid and the decision, the difficult decision, that this House has to face tonight, I think I speak for many hon. Members across the House when I say that I do not think any Government or any Parliament would want to impose these measures lightly on the people of this country. It was always right to pursue a local and regional approach, as our scientific advisers said. I will tell you why, Mr Speaker: because that regional approach was showing signs of working and still is showing signs of working. It did get the R, the transmission rate, down lower than it would otherwise have been.” The PM again failed to consider that allowing schools to remain open guaranteed the ultimate failure of this strategy just as it will in a National lockdown.

    Johnson continued excusing his shambolic policy decisions by saying, “But we have to face the reality that, in common with many other countries in this part of the world, we are facing a surge in the virus, which this House must now tackle with the measures we have outlined. They will, as hon. Members know, expire on 2 December, and I hope very much that Opposition Members will support them tonight.” Starmer finally hinted at the elephant in the room as he replied, “I am sure that nobody wants a lockdown, but it is a question of timing. Had the decision been taken a few weeks ago to put in place a circuit break, it could have been done for two to three weeks and taken advantage of schools being closed over half term. Now the Prime Minister’s proposed lockdown will be for at least four weeks, which means that businesses will be closed for longer and in the critical run-up to Christmas. Does the Prime Minister understand the economic cost of his delay in acting?” Knowing that schools pose a major infection risk, why fail to demand their closure?

    The PM hit back, “It is precisely because we understand the economic cost and the social and psychological damage of lockdowns that it was right to go for the local and regional solution, which was supported by many Members, indeed, it was supported by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, as long as it was useful to him for a while. That was the right approach. By the expiry of this period on 2 December, as I said in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Andrew Jones), we will be rolling out across this country new types of testing on a scale never seen before, beginning this week in Liverpool, enabling us to detect asymptomatic cases. That is crucial, because as the House knows, 70% of transmission is taking place between people who have no symptoms. That will enable us to find new ways on a mass scale to break the chains of transmission. I want to particularly the Labour leadership of Liverpool for their co-operation, a manner of co-operation that I commend to those on the Opposition Benches.”

    Starmer wanted contrition and a pat on the back, “The Prime Minister’s delay in acting is a huge failure of leadership, and it is no good saying that there was support for the tier system. As he well knows, I looked at the evidence and made a decision three weeks ago that the right thing was a circuit break. I do not buy the argument, I do not think anybody does, that the facts suddenly changed this weekend. The direction of travel and the number of infections, hospital admissions and, tragically, deaths have been clear for weeks. But we are where we are. Millions of people across the country are really concerned about the restrictions that will come into force at midnight tonight.” Then he managed to pose a question, “I accept that we all have a duty to pull together and try to make this lockdown work, so I just want to ask some basic and direct questions on behalf of those millions of people. First, will the lockdown end on 2 December come what may, or will it depend on the circumstances at the time? People need to know that.”

    The PM in a patronizing tone replied, “I am grateful for the support that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is now offering, and I can answer him very simply. As the House knows, and as I informed him repeatedly on Monday, these autumn measures to combat the surge will expire automatically on 2 December, and we will then, I hope very much, be able to get this country going again and get businesses and shops open again in the run-up to Christmas. But that depends on us all doing our bit now to make sure that we get the R down. I have no doubt that we can and that we will be able to go forward from 2 December with a very different approach, but of course, it will be up to the House of Commons to decide thereafter what to do.” It was Johnson’s classic ‘not me Gov’ evasion of responsibility; failure would be blamed on non-compliance and extension of restrictions on Parliament!

    In a crude attempt at ‘forensic’ questioning Starmer said, “I accept that there will be a vote in the House. That does not tell us anything; that is the process. I want to press the Prime Minister. Is he saying that if, by 2 December, the R rate has not come below 1 and is still rising, we will come out of lockdown come what may, with infection rates going up on 2 December? That does not seem sensible to me.” But Johnson was determined to spread the blame for his shambolic scattergun approach and refusal to close schools to reduce infections onto the wider populous by responding with, “It is thanks to the efforts of the British people that the R is now currently only just above 1 as it is. We are doing the right and the prudent thing at the right time to get that infection rate down, and these measures, as I have said repeatedly to the House, will expire on 2 December. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman is now saying he wants to protract them beyond 2 December, then perhaps he should make his position clear.”

    Starmer resisted being portrayed as the Grinch getting set to steal Christmas saying, “I just want some basic honesty, and this is serious. If the infection rate. We have to look the public in the eye. If the infection rate is still going up on 2 December, it is madness to come out of the system back to the tiered system, when we know the one thing the tiered system cannot cope with is an R rate above 1. That is the basic point. We can come back to it on 2 December, as we always do, but that is the point I am making.” With the minutia of ‘R’ details, eyes were glassing over in the Chamber and this was unlikely to keep TV audiences riveted!

    It was time for Starmer to go for the jugular and demand that this corrupt Tory Government stop using Test and Trace as an obscenely lucrative gravy train for their wealthy Tory donors. He stated that, “The one thing we know a circuit break or lockdown does is buy time, and the Prime Minister needs to use that time to fix Test and Trace. I know he will talk about the capacity of 500,000, what is going on in Liverpool, how it is world beating, etc., but we have been going round and round in circles on this. The latest figures show that 113,000 contacts were not even reached, and that is just in one week. Only 20% of those who should be isolating are doing so, and the majority of people still do not get results in 24 hours. So can the Prime Minister give a straight answer: what is he going to do in the next four weeks to fix this, because if he does not, we will be back here again?” Why spare the damsel of disaster? ‘Tally ho Harding’ must ride off into the sunset, enabling efficient local control to be re-established ASAP!

    The PM didn’t dare mention Harding, “With greatest respect to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, who has stood up and said that I will brag about NHS Test and Trace and its achievement of a target of capacity of 500,000, I am perfectly willing to accept the failings of NHS Test and Trace. Of course I am, and of course I take full responsibility for the frustrations people have experienced with that system, but to go from 3,000 tests a day, 2,000 tests a day to 500,000 is a quite remarkable feat.” There was more PR Spin: “It is the biggest diagnostics exercise this country has ever carried out, and they are helping to drive down the R. They are doing, in my view, an absolutely invaluable job, whatever the difficulties they face. What we now need to do is to come together as a nation, briefly, if we can, put aside party political wrangling and point scoring, and work together, as I think he will tonight, to support this package to get the R down and allow us to go forward in a different way, with the mass testing that I have outlined from 2 December.”

    Sir Keir was unimpressed as he kept needling Johnson, “The Prime Minister must see that if four out of 10 of those who should be contacted are not being contacted, we have a problem in the system that needs to be fixed in the next four weeks. Finally, I want to ask about care homes, which of course were hit so badly in the first wave of this pandemic. Can I pay tribute to all those working in care homes, who have given such dedication and commitment in the toughest of circumstances? We owe it to them not to repeat the mistakes of the first wave, but, Prime Minister, as we face the second wave, there is an increasing concern about the emotional wellbeing of those in care homes and their families if all visits are stopped. It must be possible to find a way, perhaps a dedicated family member scheme of some sort, to allow some safe visits to alleviate the huge fears of isolation and despair across the coming months. Will the Prime Minister work cross-party to find a scheme that will work for those in care and their families?”

    The PM said, “New guidance on care homes and visiting relatives safely, because the point the right hon. and learned Gentleman makes is incredibly important, is going to be announced today to try to strike the right balance between people’s real, real need to see their loved ones and obviously the risk of spreading the disease in care homes. We are going to be publishing some guidance about how that can be done today.” Johnson had not anticipated Starmer asking more than one mealy-mouthed question; he did not expect scrutiny at PMQs so he needed to discredit and shut down such ‘aggression.’ “I am grateful for the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s offer to work collaboratively, but I have to say that the House will generally have noted that he has used this crisis as an opportunity to make political capital and to have what I think a shadow spokesman called a ‘good crisis’ – ‘good crisis’.” As if the Trojan horse, Captain of Capitulation, Starmer had not worked tirelessly to enable his Tory masters and destroy Labour opposition!

    Johnson hit a raw nerve when he invoked Labour’s shameful war criminal, saying, “Can I commend a different approach, because he has attacked the Government’s strategy? Can I commend a different approach? The former Labour leader, the right hon. former Member for Sedgefield, who is not as fashionable on those Benches as he once was or should be. Not with all of them; perhaps on the Front Bench, but not all of them. He had written a good piece in today’s Daily Mail, in which he supports, broadly supports, this Government’s strategy: praising UK drugs companies for what they are doing; supporting our search for a vaccine; and supporting mass testing in Liverpool, which the right hon. and learned Gentleman deprecates. I think what he should do is actually take a leaf out of the Blair book, and by the way, I can tell him that Tony Blair would not have spent four years in the same shadow Cabinet as Jeremy Corbyn, standing shoulder to shoulder with him.” It was enough to induce vomiting among progressive Labour MPs!

    Johnson always saves his most disgustingly insulting and devious responses till last so that the opposition have no opportunity to repudiate the damaging vilification, target false promises or call out his Johnson’s incessant lies. Tory Nick Fletcher ‘stroked’ the PM by boosting ‘levelling up’ lie, saying, “I understand the position that the Government are in today, and although it is desperately hard for people and businesses, I agree that these measures are the right decision. However, once we are through this period, it is business that will restore the economy. Does my right hon. Friend agree that easing congestion in the south- east with the border control point in Don Valley will help trade to flow through the country and level-up the north, following the transition period?” The PM beamed as he said, “My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Department for Transport is already engaged on that matter, and I am sure it would be happy to meet him and representatives from the iPort that he describes.”

    SNP Ian Blackford also attempted to get the PM to distance himself from Trump’s attack on democracy. He said, “Let me take this opportunity to send my best wishes to our friends in the US during this anxious time. Donald Trump claimed an unsupported victory and major fraud, with millions of legitimate ballots left to count. I hope that the Prime Minister will join me in condemning his actions this morning. On Monday, the Prime Minister agreed access to the furlough scheme for Scotland, at 80%, if lockdown restrictions require it. Subsequently, a number of his Ministers have rolled back on that promise, and the Scottish Government have not received any detail about what the commitment means in practice. Today is the Prime Minister’s opportunity to clear up this mess of his Government’s making. Will Scotland receive full 80% furlough and payments for the self-employed under current eligibility criteria, whenever that is requested by the Scottish Government in the months ahead?”

    The PM ignored Blackford’s warning and said, “I hesitate to accuse the right hon. Gentleman of failing to listen to what I said on Monday, I think he heard exactly what I said. I gave a commitment then, and I in no way budge from that. Furlough is a UK-wide scheme and it has helped to save about 10 million jobs in this country, including about 1 million in Scotland.” Blackford responded,
    “What the Prime Minister said on Monday was that if the devolved Administrations asked for furlough, it would be granted. That was the direct answer that he gave to the question. The Scottish Government have been waiting for clarity on whether Scotland will receive additional money as a result of increased spending from English local government, and there is also no clarity about whether the unlimited payments for business support in England will be made available on a similar demand-led basis.”

    Blackford demanded clarity which the PM never delivers, but he asked, “Will the Prime Minister clarify those two points now, and commit to confirming in writing to the Scottish Government today, that access to the furlough scheme will be there if they need it?” Johnson dodged responsibility saying, “Perhaps the most efficient thing I can tell the right hon. Gentleman is that tomorrow, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will be making a general statement about all the support and provisions that we are making for this latest phase to tackle the autumn surge of coronavirus. I repeat the points that I have made about Barnett consequentials—£7.2 billion has already gone to help Scotland, and we will support people in Scotland and throughout the UK during this crisis.”

    Alliance MP Stephen Farry reiterated US/UK diplomacy concerns asking, “If every vote is counted in the US election, it is likely that Joe Biden will be the victor. The Prime Minister has a major challenge to build relationships with any incoming Administration. Therefore, in the light of Joe Biden’s entirely correct analysis of the impact on the Good Friday agreement of the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill, how quickly will the Prime Minister recognise the inevitable and remove those clauses from the Bill?” The PM was devious in his reply, saying, “The UK Internal Market Bill, which has cross-party support, is a vital part of the armature, the skeletal structure, of the whole UK economy as we leave the European Union, and it ensures that goods and services placed on the market are available throughout the UK on the same terms. It is vital for our country and the hon. Gentleman should support it.”

    Labour MP Mary Kelly Foy challenged Tory zero accountability saying, “In my short time as MP for the City of Durham, Dominic Cummings has fatally undermined public health messaging, has had historical planning violations exposed, and has short-changed us with an unpaid council tax bill of up to £50,000. Will the Prime Minister condemn this continued flouting of the rules, or does he have a blind spot that even a trip to Barnard Castle cannot fix?” Ignoring criticism with a typical indefensible response, the PM said, “What has possibly undermined people’s confidence in, and understanding of, what the Government are trying to do is the constant party political point-scoring, and the attempts by the Labour party and the hon. Lady to obscure what we are trying to do. The best thing would be to advise her constituents on what to do: follow the guidance, and get the virus down and let us all do it together.” What a sick joke!

    But when Tory Karl MᶜCartney launched into a typical rant over Labour fantisemitism by embellishing the EHRC Report with zero regard to the obscene level of full on racism in the conservative party it was open season on abuse aimed at the current leader who had hoped his grovelling unwarranted apologies would end the abuse. Instead this intervention was hailed by the PM as a terrific excuse for unsubstantiated factional mud-slinging aimed at the total evisceration of the Labour Party. Johnson was now demanding that the Labour Party should ditch Unison funding for daring to daring to defend Corbyn! The utter hypocrisy of Tory MPs extends beyond vilifying a lifelong anti-racist while stoking a sick racist divide with their hate speech. Criticism of neglecting hungry children: they boasted as if those rescuing the impoverished were a Tory triumph! But there was no shame over the public money squandered on Test and Trace costing just £32 a head in Wales compared to ‘Tally ho Harding’s £1,700 a head in England!

    This Tory Government have no shame; they are getting away with breaking the law and plundering the public purse while taunting opposition MP over meaningless trivialities. This is only possible because the British public have allowed this injustice to continue unabated after conceding the stolen, fabricated ‘landslide victory’ of the Covert 2019 Rigged Election. PMQs has always been a sham, but it is getting worse now that the is no Labour opposition under the pathetic leadership of Captain of Capitulation Sir Keir Starmer. We must challenge the legitimacy of the Covert 2019 Rigged Election and fully Investigate the corrupt postal voting scam in order to remove this incompetent Tory Government from office. This haemorrhaging of public funds at the expense of an efficient functioning localized Test and Trace system is costing lives as the Tories continue pursuing their inhumane ruthless cull of all our most vulnerable citizens. To derail the Tory ‘Slaughter of the Sheeple’ we must throw them out of office or jail them for corruption! DO NOT MOVE ON!

    #62144 Reply
    Kim Sanders-Fisher

    Andrew Marr tried hard to extract that vital neo-con admission from David Lammy to support the total obliteration of the progressive Left; thankfully he did not succeed as Lammy refused to succumb to pressure. The Left has taken a severe hit both here and in the US, but you cannot continue to convince the exploited that their destitution is so resoundingly great for the wellbeing that they voted for more misery out of choice. It is unrealistic to believe that, despite the Covid 19 crisis, the working poor didn’t really want universal access to healthcare or $15 an hour minimum wage. This is the same hoax pulled on our semi-destitute population when the Media insisted the threat of unemployment, eviction and having children starve was a lower priority than the nebulous nirvana pipe dream of Brexit. If anything the shockingly close call in the US Presidential Election was a strong warning sign that the duped masses were so enraged by seeing the possibility of progressive equality sabotaged yet again that they just did not bother to vote.

    By examining this travesty in the US it is possible to see the clear parallels here, In a Gal-Dem Article entitle, “Black American non-voters are heavily criticised, but can you blame them? The failure of American electoral politics hurts black people more than most. During the presidential election of 1980 between Democrat Jimmy Carter and Republican Ronald Reagan, James Baldwin was asked: ‘Who are you voting for?’ He responded with characteristic intellectual poise: ‘No Black citizen of what is left of Harlem supposes that either Carter or Reagan, or Anderson has any concern for them at all, except for as voters – that is to put it brutally, except as instruments, or dupes, and while one hates to say that the black citizens are right, one certainly cannot say they are wrong.’ They note that, “both presidential candidates represented different types of violence, especially violence towards the black community. He knew that the election did not have a chance of bringing black people the liberation they deserve.”

    Gal-Dem assert, “Looking at the 2020 elections in the US, 40 years on, black people are faced with the very same problem. Both of the possible presidential candidates have inflicted significant violence on black communities. There is very little hope to be found in their premiership and plenty of left-wing black people who have made the decision not to vote for either of them at all. Black non-voting has led to harsh criticism in the past, with commentator Brando Simeo Starky calling it ‘sheer selfishness’ back in 2016.” However, they highlight the very issues that made me balk at voting for Biden aside from the fact that this aging super-Hawk will probably drag the UK into another unjustified foreign intervention to benefit the Military Industrial Complex. They point out that, “Joe Biden’s 1994 crime bill was major in manifesting the school-to-prison pipeline for black men. He pushed President Jimmy Carter to bolster the war on drugs and his influence has led to the United States having the highest incarceration rate in the world.”

    I can also understand why women of colour might not be thrilled to have Kamala Harris as their flag-bearer of equal opportunity. Despite her multi-cultural background, Biden’s VP has some seriously questionable heavy-handed decisions in her track record that do not demonstrate any empathy for minorities or the disadvantaged. Gal-Dem say that Biden’s now, “Vice President, is a self-characterised ‘reformer’, yet her record in California as prosecutor shows contradictions. Although Kamala implemented programs that helped people find employment as opposed to incarcerating them, she also pushed for people to remain in prison even after they had been proven innocent.” I consider such harsh judgements unforgivable; Harris also prosecuted parents for their child’s truancy causing additional hardship. Gal-Dem are less critical, reporting how, “Kamala paved the way for racial sensitivity training programs within the police to address their racial biases, but she also chose not to investigate certain officer-related shootings.”

    Gal-Dem insist, “We have to acknowledge how deeply unfair the choice between Donald Trump and Joe Biden is for black people.”
    They say, “Even with such a stain on Joe Biden’s campaign, a large majority of black people who chose to vote will still have voted for him in yesterday’s election. Donald Trump has devastated basic human rights, emboldened white supremacists who he told to ‘stand by’ and has been unbelievably irresponsible throughout the duration of the Covid-19 pandemic (which is disproportionately affecting the black American community. People want to see him gone. But we have to acknowledge how deeply unfair the choice between the pair is and allow for black people to make legitimate criticisms of the Democratic candidate as much as they critique the Republican one. Online and in-person, people are sometimes shamed with ‘Well, do you want Donald Trump to be elected again?’ The answer is clearly ‘no’.”

    Gel-Dem justifiably assert that, “Black Americans shouldn’t be chastised for choosing not to engage in electoral politics at all if they legitimately don’t trust in the alternative; a system that has continuously let them down.” But how is that relevant to our political choices on this side of the pond? Although all of the issues of job insecurity and borderline destitution are felt by a wide swath of the working poor of all ethnicities here, which is equally true in the US, the situation is far worse among minority communities and there are added grievances like the racial profiling of ‘stop and search.’ Gel-Dem highlight that, “In the UK, I feel we face a similar dilemma – having been completely alienated from the Labour party by Keir Starmer by calling the Black Lives Matter movement a ‘moment’ and the 860-page report in which members of the Labour BAME staff network felt there was a hierarchy of racism where antisemitism is taken seriously, but anti-black racism and Islamophobia are not.”

    Gel-Dem rightfully accuse, “Our Prime Minister Boris Johnson is well known for holding racist views – referring to black Africans as ‘piccaninnies’ with ‘watermelon smiles’ and saying black people have lower IQs. Last month, the Conservative government actually banned ‘critical race theory’ – labelling it as divisive’.” I must admit I was not sure what ‘critical race theory’ was, but I was curious enough to read a recent Guardian Article entitled, “Why is the UK government suddenly targeting ‘critical race theory’?” They say, “By importing Trump’s culture war, the Conservatives are trying to close down any discussion of structural inequality. Until this month, according to the parliamentary record, Hansard, the term ‘critical race theory’ had never once been uttered in the House of Commons chamber. By the end of the day on 20 October, however, it was of such importance that the government declared itself ‘unequivocally against’ the concept.” In essence it marks the Tory refusal to acknowledge the brutal reality of our racist past.

    The Guardian quote the misleadingly named Tory ’Equalities Minister, “’We do not want teachers to teach their white pupils about white privilege and inherited racial guilt,’ warned the equalities minister, Kemi Badenoch, at the end of a six-hour debate to mark Black History Month. ‘Any school which teaches these elements of critical race theory, or which promotes partisan political views such as defunding the police without offering a balanced treatment of opposing views, is breaking the law’.” I have examined other interventions by Badenoch and come to the disgraceful conclusion that despite her gender and BAME heritage she epitomizes the most extreme determination to completely ignore the harsh realities experienced by minorities in the UK. Badenoch is either wilfully ignorant of her remit or blissfully out of touch, but I imagine she was specifically chosen by Boris Johnson for such deficiencies.

    The Guardian say, “Strictly speaking, critical race theory is an academic field that originated in the US around 40 years ago. As the British academic Kojo Koram notes, it began as an attempt by legal scholars to understand why black communities experienced discrimination in the criminal justice system, even though they were formally guaranteed equal rights. Today, the term has become a kind of shorthand in US politics for an approach to race relations that asks white people to consider their structural advantage within a system that has, historically, been profoundly racist.In the wake of this year’s Black Lives Matter protests, however, ‘critical race theory’ has also been the target of an anti-leftist witch-hunt ordered by Donald Trump: in September, the US president ordered federal agencies and contractors to stop funding any training programmes that drew on ‘race-based ideologies’: a range of ideas, crudely put, that suggests racism persists in today’s America.”

    They quote, “This is a sickness that cannot be allowed to continue,” Trump tweeted. “Please report any sightings so we can quickly extinguish!” The Guardian report that, “In the UK, critical race theory is a relatively marginal intellectual current, and a term most people are unlikely to have encountered until now. Yet the Conservative government, no doubt glancing across the Atlantic, has decided to co-opt this bogeyman into the culture war it enthusiastically pursues on several fronts, whether it’s against ‘lefty lawyers’ who represent migrants in court, or against the ‘north London metropolitan liberal elite’. When the Black Lives Matter protests spread to the UK this summer, they ignited a fraught national conversation about racism. Many responded by offering solidarity to the thousands of young black people who took to the streets to protest at their own experiences of racism, and demand that Britain more fully acknowledge the injustices in its history.” In the US and the UK the entire progressive Left is coming under the cosh!

    Guardian claim that, “It also prompted a backlash, one that the government has increasingly thrown its weight behind, seeking to portray the movement as dangerously extreme. The Department for Education told schools in England that they were not to use materials produced by anti-capitalist groups, or teach ‘victim narratives that are harmful to British society’. In his Conservative party conference speech earlier this month, Boris Johnson accused Labour of being on the side of those who ‘want to pull statues down, to rewrite the history of our country… to make it look more politically correct’. Tom Hunt, the MP for Ipswich, accused the leaders of Black Lives Matter of having ‘strayed beyond what should be a powerful yet simple and unifying message in opposition to the racism that still exists in our society, into cultural Marxism, the abolition of the nuclear family, defunding the police and overthrowing capitalism’.”

    The Guardian report that, “Since Trump began his assault at the end of the summer, however, a handful of rightwing commentators have been trying to import the moral panic into the UK, mainly via the pages of the Telegraph and Spectator.” They say, “For the right, ‘wokeness’ fills much the same role as ‘political correctness’ might have done in an earlier era: it is a rallying cry against a liberal elite whose values are allegedly being imposed on an unwilling population. Since 2016, this populist tactic has become a central way to shore up support among the new coalition of voters the Tories have assembled. Its ultimate effect, however, is to deflect any conversation about structural inequality – and not just when it comes to race.” The Guardian point out the opportunity to “materially improve the lives of poorer children of all backgrounds in what will be an extraordinarily difficult winter, by extending free school meals into the Christmas holidays, the Conservatives were dead set against it.” Thankfully Rashford scored another U-turn!

    Although the abysmal voting choice was distressing for many of the white working poor Gel-Dem say that, “Asking black people in the West to choose between the ‘lesser of two evils’ is offensive at best and completely dangerous at worst, especially after the 2020 Black Lives Matter civil rights movement. Black activists and allies spent months on the streets calling for the police to be defunded and even abolished. For the movement to now lose momentum and these protestors to feel caught between two campaigns, both with heavy support of the carceral system, is a betrayal to those who believed in change.” Calls do defund the police are misleading as they suggest a complete abolition of law enforcement which is not the ultimate goal. However, police in America evolved from the slave catchers to become a force directed towards the subjugation of their descendants. In the UK they are not trusted by BAME communities who feel unfairly targeted; what is required is a whole new ethos of protect and serve.

    Gel-Dem report that in the US, “Five months ago it looked like there was a chance to create new systems. Now, black abolitionists are being told by Kerry Washington to ‘Vote because George Floyd should be turning 47 today’. Let’s be honest – a Democratic government would not necessarily have saved George Floyd. Mike Brown, Clinton Allen and Trayvon Martin were all killed under the Obama administration.’ ‘People need to be sympathetic towards their black counterparts and realise they are stuck between a rock and a hard place.’ It’s easy to see why some black people would choose not to vote. For too long black people have been used as political pawns in a game of chess between two old white men. This is illustrated by the fact that it was recently revealed that Trump’s election campaign in 2016 actively sought to disenfranchise black voters, and Biden’s awful remark back in May: ‘If you have a problem figuring out if you’re for me or Trump, then you ain’t black!’”

    Just like Keir Starmer pictured ‘taking the knee,’ Gel-Dem point to, “Biden giving the family of George Floyd and Eric Garner the floor to speak on the first night of his convention as not enough to win every black vote when we continue to see no structural change. People need to be sympathetic towards their black counterparts and realise they are stuck between a rock and a hard place; they should not have their legitimate concerns about elements of the Biden campaign dismissed under a barrage of ‘What’s worse?’ I understand why people want everyone to vote and for the Democratic candidate to be elected, even if it’s only to get Trump out, but it is not lost on me how disappointing it is that the brutal fight for the right to vote fought by our predecessors leaves black Americans with the choice between two candidates they cannot put their full faith in. What is needed for black non-voters is understanding, because regardless of who wins, black Americans still lose.”

    In America although there has been a huge excited response to the Biden victory, besides the ‘Popular vote,’ we should worry that not only did he barely scrape over the line in critical States needed to secure enough Electoral College votes, the DNC lost several Congressional seats and has probably failed to seize control of the US Senate. Unless the Democrats win both Georgia Senate seats in a run-off in January, just like a hung Parliament here, it will be very hard for Biden to govern. Despite the intense Media hype this was not a resounding success. But just like America’s forgotten minorities the working poor who have voted Labour in the past will not flock to the poles in droves to vote for Keir Starmer even if we are offered a sham election in another four years. If he thinks his massive lurch to the right has inspired confidence and garnered support he is totally delusional. Corbyn’s historic Labour manifesto was inspirational, but Starmer, obsessed with his own ego, thinks “New Leadership” and nationalism will make him PM!

    Starmer lied and made false promises he had no intention of keeping, just to secure the Labour Leadership. Since then he has, against the advice of Labour’s Legal team, squandered membership dues to make an unwarranted legal settlement and launched a vindictive purge of the progressive Left, including the unprecedented removal of the former Labour Leader, Jeremy Corbyn. It now appears that these toxic moves have initiated an exodus from the Labour Party. But Keir Starmer in his sad lack of wisdom, not to mention his appalling dearth of self-awareness, has gutted his enthusiastic Momentum ground team who faithfully went door to door canvassing. No amount of wealthy donor cash will pay to effectively outsource that enthusiasm and commitment: Keir is toast! The DNC just cheated Bernie Sanders out of the Democratic nomination for a second time and he still got behind the second lying cheat, but Starmer has tried to crucify Corbyn, so don’t expect Jeremy to throw himself behind Party rallies for Tory lite!

    The Democrats will face a rude awakening when they finally realize that the repeat cheat scam will no longer get them elected. There are too many angry voters and young people sick of getting cheated out of a reasonable future to enrich the Corporate elite. Online organizing will offer a way forward plus the massive rallies that drew crowds to hear Bernie Sanders speak about equality in the US and Corbyn do the same here; this will return as the virus is tamed. The most vital priority is that we do not allow the drone of neo-con Media to overwhelm the demand for equality. The Covert 2019 Rigged Election has handed the Tories unprecedented power and they are manipulating Covid to their advantage, but their claim to political legitimacy is fake and we need to expose the truth with a full Investigation into the December vote ASAP. If we do not derail the Tory agenda in the next two months not only will their ‘Slaughter of the Sheeple’ take many more lives this winter, but the New Year will usher in decades of Dictatorship. DO NOT MOVE ON!

    #62160 Reply
    Kim Sanders-Fisher

    Trump, desperate for attention, is still hoping to cling to power; he is in total denial that for the most part the news has moved on and he’s now just a sad loser – we all know how much he hates losers… My ex in the States just emailed this gem: “’Votes cannot be cast after the Poles are closed!’ Trump tweeted, before taking another Krakow at the spelling.” I’m ashamed to say that I made the same typo in my last post; I might yet become Presidential material if the Tories don’t exterminate me in their ongoing Covid cull before I reach ‘full maturity’! But, I take comfort in the reports that it seems Dominic Raab stuffed his foot well and truly into his mouth during Sunday morning interviews with both Marr and Ridge. The Canary Article entitled, “Dominic Raab involved in multiple TV car crashes on Sunday; Dominic Raab didn’t exactly have a good morning on Sunday 8 November.” They claim that, “he repeatedly fell apart across both the Andrew Marr Show and Sophy Ridge on Sunday,” which they describe as: “Astonishing”?

    The Canary report, “First, the foreign secretary was on Ridge. The host brought the subject of the US election up. The reportedly outgoing president Donald Trump has wildly claimed that there has been “fraud” and ‘corruption’ around mail-in (postal) voting. This has been debunked as essentially nonsense at present. Trump has also called for states to stop counting votes. So, Ridge probed Raab about this. She asked: Do you think that all votes should be counted in a democratic election? The answer would seem fairly obvious to many. Unless, of course, you’re the Tory foreign secretary. Raab swerved the question, saying: Look, I’m not here to get drawn into… what is a different system in the US. But Ridge wouldn’t let it go. She interrupted him, saying: Sorry, the question is do you think all votes should be counted in a democratic election? I find it astonishing there’s not an answer to that. Prepare to be even more astonished then, Ridge, because Raab still tried not to answer: He finally caved in, though. But only by a bit.”

    The Canary switched to their observation of the Andrew Marr show saying, “Marr must have been ‘astonished’ too. Because Raab also refused to directly answer his question on the predicted President elect Joe Biden and Brexit.” Regarding the Good Friday Agreement they say, “The BBC host was grilling Raab about the contentious internal market bill. Here, it was specifically in relation to the Good Friday Agreement. The Belfast Telegraph reported that the bill ‘jeopardises’ the Good Friday Agreement. It said: Representatives of civil society groups have said that the actions of the Government are ‘jeopardising’ the Good Friday Agreement and the functioning of the devolved administration at Stormont. The groups… have described the actions of the Government as ‘contravening’ international law and ‘undermining’ the provisions of the Protocol items relating to the non-diminution of rights and equality protections. The point being that Biden has already come out and said he would protect the agreement. Yes or no?”

    It would seem that Marr was being really explicit with his questioning, the Canary say, “Marr took Raab to task over this. The host said: [Biden’s] comment about the Good Friday Agreement not being a casualty of Brexit was actually only two months ago, so he is very focused on this.” Marr emphasized that, “the new incoming team have been very, very clear, they want to see changes in the Internal Market Bill.” So Marr had asked Raab, “one more time, to give me a clear answer as to whether the government has heard that message and is prepared to move in any way on the Internal Market Bill. Yes or no?” The Canary report that, “Of course Raab tried to swerve the question: But, of course, there’s good reason for Raab to dodge the questions from Ridge and Marr. Some commentators think that a Biden presidency could be tricky for the Tories over Brexit.”

    Referring to Biden’s stance on the Good Friday Agreement the Canary report that, “WalesOnline noted that he: opposed Brexit and, due to his Irish heritage, has expressed concern about its potential impact on Ireland’s economy and Northern Ireland’s security. And he has described Prime Minister Boris Johnson as ‘a physical and emotional clone’ of Trump. So, the challenge for Johnson is that his whole 2019 election was based on a ‘no ifs, no buts’ Brexit and to just ‘get it done’. Now, with it looking like Biden will try and force a compromise, the Tories will be in an uncomfortable position: betray the voters they scooped up with the promise of Brexit no matter what? Or give in to concessions from Biden – and in doing so, demonstrate they haven’t really ‘taken back control’ of anything? Raab’s clusterfucking was a prime example of the panic and potential chaos the Biden presidency may cause. It’s going to be an interesting few months.”

    Today the contentious ‘Internal Market Bill’ was again under scrutiny in the Lords, where the PM has not yet managed to usurp absolute control through bullying, intimidation and threats as he has so ably succeeded in doing with Tory MPs in the Commons. A Sky News Article entitled, “Brexit: Government vows to reinstate any UK Internal Market Bill clauses removed by House of Lords” reports on, “A fresh row over the legislation is likely to again be closely watched by US president-elect Joe Biden.” They claim that, “The government will reinstate any parts of its international law-breaking Brexit legislation that are removed by the House of Lords, a cabinet minister has vowed. The UK Internal Market Bill, which has been condemned by critics both in Westminster and abroad, seeks to allow ministers to override the Withdrawal Agreement signed with the EU. But the proposed legislation is set to suffer a heavy defeat in the House of Lords on Monday, when peers consider the most controversial parts of the bill.”

    Sky News have reported that, “Labour warned the UK could become an ‘international pariah’ if the bill is passed in full. A fresh parliamentary row over the legislation is likely to again be closely watched in the US, where president-elect Joe Biden has previously warned about Northern Ireland’s Good Friday Agreement becoming a ‘casualty’ of Brexit.” They note, “the Financial Times reported Mr Biden would stress this point during his first call with Prime Minister Boris Johnson in the coming days.” Do not forget that the Tories have lied to voters about crash-out Brexit boasting that we can walk away without paying the agreed amount owed. Imagine you take a large group of friends out to dinner in a fancy restaurant and you all thoroughly enjoy the costly meal with lavish quantities of fine wine. But when the bill is presented you object to paying what is due and you just walk out. After openly bragging about the money you just saved, how many other restaurants do you think would welcome your custom?

    “Environment Secretary George Eustice told Sky News the government would stand firmly behind its legislation. Asked whether ministers would immediately reinstate any of the bill’s clauses that might be removed by the House of Lords, Mr Eustice replied: ‘We will. The UK Internal Market Bill is not about undermining the Belfast Agreement, it’s about standing behind it and making sure it works and looking after the interests of Northern Ireland – making sure the peace that has been hard-won there can carry on. ‘The limited number of areas where we took a power, subject to parliament agreeing it, to be able to create legal clarity and legal certainty should there be areas that the Joint Committee process in our negotiations with the EU can’t agree. We’ve got to provide that legal certainty and legal clarity and that’s all the bill does’.” That infamous statement re breaching a signed international treaty in ‘limited and very specific’ ways doesn’t bode well for the prospect of any future trade agreements yet to be negotiated or signed.

    Sky News report that, “Lord Falconer, Labour’s shadow attorney general, branded the government’s argument that the bill is needed to protect the Good Friday Agreement as ‘utter and obvious nonsense’. He told Sky News: ‘I would advise the government to stop and think. ‘What on Earth is the point in making the UK an international pariah just at the moment a new US president emerges who is saying ‘not only do I want the British government to comply with the Northern Ireland Protocol, but I want a law-abiding world’? ‘To make ourselves an international outsider, somebody who will come low down the list of people the US will want to do business with is a very big mistake for the UK.’ Lord Falconer said the House of Lords was ‘doing the government a favour by seeking to take out these law-breaking provisions now’. ‘It gets the government off a hook – I would suggest the government stops digging, they’re in a big hole,’ he added.”

    Sky News point out that, “Senior Conservative MP Tobias Ellwood, a former minister and now chair of the House of Commons’ defence select committee, said that if the UK was ‘genuine about a new chapter of co-operation’ with the US under Mr Biden, then it ‘must ditch’ parts of the UK Internal Market Bill.” This would seem to indicate that not all Tory MP are fully committed to the deliberate reckless damage that Johnson, no doubt on the orders of his puppet master Dominic Cummings, is prepared to do to the UK’s record on foreign diplomacy. Will Tory MPs defy the whip by daring to vote against the bill, knowing the PM could toss them out of his all powerful Conservative Party? With the appalling example set by President Trump, for trampling on the acceptable norms of global order, now about to fade into the realm of disturbing memories, does the UK really want to top the leader board as the world’s most untrustworthy rogue state? Johnson will not be feeling so invincible without Trump in the White House.

    In the iNews Article entitled, “Brexit latest: What happens next as Lords prepare to vote on controversial Internal Market Bill” they say, “Prime Minister Boris Johnson will also talk to President-elect Joe Biden on Monday, who has been outspoken against the Government’s Brexit strategy so far.” They say, “Boris Johnson will proceed with his controversial Brexit legislation that threatens to break international law, despite possible friction with new US President-elect Joe Biden. In yet another busy Brexit week, the Lords could be poised to temporarily derail Mr Johnson’s strategy by voting down parts of the Internal Market Bill. Meanwhile, Downing Street will be juggling last-minute talks with the EU’s negotiator whilst waiting for an introductory phone call from the soon-to-be leader of the US – who has made his Brexit thoughts pretty clear. All this as the time is ticking for a deal to be reached before the end of the Brexit transition period at the end of the year.”

    Here’s what’s happening next with the Lords set to rebel. According to iNews, “The Prime Minister confirmed in a pooled clip released over the weekend that he intended to push on with the Internal Market Bill, which override clauses in the Withdrawal Agreement relating to Northern Ireland, despite opposition. But, with peers due to vote on it this week, Mr Johnson is facing a potential defeat. Many in the House of Lords have been outraged by its powers and they now have the chance to express their anger during a vote on Monday afternoon. Peers are due to vote on an amendment calling for the removal of measures that the Government has admitted would give it powers to break international law in a ‘very specific and limited way’. If the amendment is passed it would then go back to the Commons for another vote, at which point the Government could reinstate anything the Lords had removed should they choose to.”

    iNews report that, “Mr Johnson, asked on Sunday whether he was determined to pass the bill in the face of Mr Biden’s criticisms, said: ‘Yes, as I told Ursula (von der Leyen, European Commission president) the parliamentary timetable goes ahead. “The whole point of that bill, and indeed the Finance Bill, is to protect and uphold the Good Friday Agreement and the peace process in Northern Ireland. And again, that’s one of the things that we’re united on with our friends in the White House’.” This level of deceitful double-talk fudge, conveniently spun by the PM to the UK public via his compliant right-wing Media, might have met with the full approval of the non-detail oriented former President Donald Trump, but it will not breeze by Biden to get even remotely close to a resounding defeat in US Congress. iNews confirmed that, “Environment Secretary George Eustice said the Government would reinstate controversial clauses that enable ministers to break international laws if Lords try to strip them out.”

    Boris Johnson’s relationship with the new Democratic President, Joe Biden, will get off to a rocky start if he does not ditch the Internal Markets Bill. Biden has already signalled his contempt for Johnson as a Trump clone, although I’m sure he will try to be polite, but firm when he finally discusses matters over the phone. iNews say that, “The ongoing row over the Government’s controversial Northern Ireland proposal, which has been bubbling on for months, now has an added complication in the form of President-elect Biden. Mr Biden, who has Irish heritage, has made it clear that he does not support the Government’s current proposals. He warned back in September that the Good Friday Agreement cannot be “a casualty of Brexit” and said a UK-US trade deal would be dependent on the peace terms being upheld. Mr Biden also said that a trade deal with the US is ‘contingent’ on the prevention of a return to a hard border on the island of Ireland.” The PM is in a very weak negotiating position.

    iNews report that, “Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer has jumped on the opportunity to use this to force the Government’s hand and has called on Downing Street to scrap the Brexit bill if it wants to build an alliance with the Biden administration. ‘We will soon have a president in the Oval Office who has been a passionate advocate for the preservation of the Good Friday Agreement,’ Sir Keir wrote in an article for The Guardian. ‘He, like governments across the world, will take a dim view if our Prime Minister ploughs ahead with proposals to undermine that agreement. If the Government is serious about a reset in its relationship with the United States, then it should take an early first step and drop these proposals’.” iNews note that, “Mr Johnson and Mr Biden are due to have a phone call on Monday – at the same time as the Lords debate on the issue – when the President-elect may choose to lay down the conditions of a future trade deal between the US and UK.”

    iNews report on the continuing Brexit talks saying, “Meanwhile, EU chief negotiator Michel Barnier has arrived in London for a new round of talks with his UK counterpart Lord Frost this week. The EU’s chief negotiator said there were three ‘keys to unlock a deal’ with the UK that would satisfy the EU member states. He said the first was ‘respect of EU autonomy and UK sovereignty’, with ‘effective governance and enforcement mechanisms between international partners’. The second was ‘robust guarantees’ of free and fair trade and competition based on ‘shared high standards, evolving coherently over time’. The third element was ‘stable and reciprocal access to markets and fishing opportunities in the interest of both parties’. Mr Johnson is faced with the task of juggling his tense negotiations with the EU, where both sides are playing hardball and refusing to budge, and not alienating himself from the future President of the US during his first week.” The PM still doesn’t get that it is their club and the EU 27 get to make the rules!

    iNews claim that, “Number 10 does have way out, however. It could avoid a clash with the White House by agreeing a deal with the EU and therefore leaving the Internal Markets Bill, which would then be redundant. But, for months, the two sides have been unable to reach an agreement on certain issues such as fisheries and state aid. Mr Eustice has, however, indicated a possible compromise on fisheries, which has been a major point of contention delaying progress on a deal. ‘On fisheries, we’ve always been open to doing a sensible approach looking particularly at agreements that might span a couple, three years for instance,’ he told Sky News. ‘We’re going to be sensible in how we approach this but making sure that we have control of our own waters again and controlled access to our waters has always been a red line for us in these negotiations.’ But the time for negotiations is fast running out.” I don’t think they realize the Tories are committed to crash-out Brexit’ the ‘negotiations’ are just a time wasting sham!

    iNews report that, “A deal would need to be agreed in the next week or so in order for it to be ratified in time for the end of the transition period on 31 December,” as if the hard core Brexiteers have any intention of concluding a deal. They say, “It has felt like almost every month contains a ‘crunch week for Brexit talks.’ but this one definitely is.” The chaos of crash-out is a vital, necessary and integral component to solidifying the Tory Dictatorship; it cannot be compromised by a ‘deal’ with the EU, no matter how great the hardship is for ordinary citizens of the UK. The ‘Holocaust in Care’ is proof that the Tories no longer need their reliable older voters, but they do not need ‘Red Wall’ voters who never ‘lent’ their votes in the first place: Dictatorships don’t need voters to remain in place for decades. If we fail to act now to challenge and fully Investigate the Covert 2019 Rugged Election in a couple of months it will be too late to save our democracy. We must oust the Tory Trojan horse Keir Starmer and Get The Tories Out ASAP! DO NOT MOVE ON!

    #62215 Reply
    Kim Sanders-Fisher

    Conveniently drowned out by the massive media focus on the US Election a long awaited inquiry got underway that should expose grave reasons why it remains so critically important to defeat the CHIS Spycops Bill. If the general public continue to be discreetly shielded from the perverse reality of the horrendous negative impact these undercover police officers had on the lives of ordinary, law abiding citizens, and the disgraceful lack of genuine justification for their deployment, we are naively positioning ourselves for far more intrusive, politically motivated surveillance under the alarmingly expansive utilization of spycops in future. What appears as a far more disturbing feature of this new legislation is that this ‘no holes bared’ remit of clandestine and even criminal activity will become a Government sanctioned task of private security/militia companies. In addition this will not require the authorization of a Judge whose intervention might prevent widespread abuse of these powers and there will be no recourse for future victims.

    In the Canary Article entitled, “Campaigners question if mammoth undercover policing inquiry can get to the truth,” they say that, “Campaigners who were targeted by undercover police officers have raised doubts that a £30 million public inquiry will get to the truth about tactics used by controversial secret units.” Was this perfectly timed to avoid press scrutiny during exclusive US Election coverage or just coincidentally scheduled to start one day before the vote? They note, “Hearings in the Undercover Policing Inquiry are due to begin tomorrow, with opening statements for seven days and then the first live witnesses. The mammoth investigation, looking at undercover policing since 1968, has been split into tranches by date – with the first block of hearings in November due to cover the activities of the Metropolitan Police Special Demonstration Squad between 1968 and 1972. In January, it will begin looking at SDS deployments from 1973 to 1982, and undercover policing in later decades on dates to be fixed.”

    The Canary report that, “Lisa, a spokeswoman for campaign group Police Spies Out of Lives which represents nearly 200 people who were targeted, said they feel excluded from the inquiry. She told the PA news agency: ‘It’s real mixed emotions. We’re glad it’s finally happening but we’ve been shut out, we feel, to such an extent that it’s actually not going to get to the truth. ‘Our views are being sidelined to a really worrying degree. I think we are almost despairing at this point that it might actually not be a worthwhile exercise.’ So far, inquiry chairman Sir John Mitting has ruled that the cover names of 51 officers must remain secret, along with 119 of the real names of officers and staff. Lisa said: ‘The judge has restricted not only the real names but the cover names of many, many of these officers so we don’t even know their cover names. ‘So how in the hell are you supposed to get to the truth when nobody knows of the officer’s infiltration? You’ve just got the police records at this point.”

    The Canary say according to Lisa, “’To just take the police claims at face value, which is what the judge will be doing because we have no input because we don’t know who these officers are, it’s dangerous and it’s going to lead to very skewed conclusions.’ She also believes that the Covert Human Intelligence Sources Bill currently going through Parliament, that would allow undercover officers and informants to commit crime, is pre-empting the inquiry’s conclusions. She said: ‘It kind of makes a mockery of the whole inquiry process. If it has already been decided on the conduct of undercover policing, then what is the point of the Undercover Policing Inquiry? ‘It’s supposed to suggest conduct, it’s supposed to work out where conduct is lacking. The CHIS Bill has just pre-empted that’.”

    The Canary explain that, “The inquiry was set up in 2015 by then home secretary Theresa May to look at undercover policing in England and Wales since 1968, focusing on two secret units – the SDS and the National Public Order Intelligence Unit (NPOIU), that was set up in 1999. The move came after a number of controversial police tactics were revealed, including using the identities of dead children as cover names without their parents’ knowledge. Several women became involved in sexual relationships with undercover officers without knowing their true identity until years later, and family justice campaigns, including that for murdered teenager Stephen Lawrence, were spied upon. To date, the inquiry has cost £29.7 million.”

    The Canary report that,“A spokesman for the UCPI said that the chairman seeks and considers input of all 236 core participants in the inquiry, as well as other stakeholders. He said: ‘The inquiry aims to be as open and transparent as possible. To enable members of the public to determine whether they have been affected by undercover policing and to come forward with evidence, the inquiry has published the cover names of 69 former undercover officers in the Special Demonstration Squad (SDS). This figure equates to around 60% of all known former SDS undercover officers.” They say, “In considering applications for real name or cover name anonymity for officers, the chairman balances the extent to which revealing the officer’s real name or cover name would help the inquiry fulfil its objectives, if at all, against the right of the officer and their families to private life.”

    The Canary point out that, “However, decisions on anonymity do not affect whether officers are required to give evidence as part of the inquiry’s investigations and during the inquiry’s oral hearings, evidence will be heard from a range of core participants from both the police and non-state side.” This is hardly reassuring to the victims some of whom may never know if a once trusted partner who mysteriously suddenly disappeared from their life was a lover or a liar! The Canary Article entitled, “Monday 2 November finally saw the Undercover Policing Inquiry begin, after five years of delays, they say, “The inquiry will examine the disgusting actions of police units that employed over 140 police officers to spy on activists and campaign groups for years.” According to Campaign Opposing Police Surveillance (COPS), since 1968: over 1,000 groups campaigning in the UK for a better society and better world have been systematically spied upon, infiltrated, or otherwise targeted by secret and unaccountable political police units.”

    The Canary explain that, “Theresa May announced the inquiry in 2015 after the Ellison report, published in 2014, revealed that Stephen Lawerence’s family were spied on. The revelations caused public outrage. And it finally forced the government to look like it was investigating the decades-long state-sanctioned infiltration of campaign groups and social justice movements. Since 2015, participants in the inquiry have had to continually fight what they call the ‘prioritising of the protection of perpetrators’ privacy above the right of victims and the public to know the truth’.” It was described as, “The least ‘public’ public inquiry I have ever seen.”

    The Canary report that, “There are 200 victims, known as ‘core participants’, taking part in the inquiry. One is a woman known as Lisa. She was deceived into a relationship with undercover officer Mark Kennedy for six years. It was a deception which, she says, ‘was actually perpetrated and supported by the state.’ Lisa has no faith in the inquiry, but is hoping to get some clarity into what happened to her. She told The Canary: It’s almost exactly a decade to the day that I found out my partner of six years was an undercover policeman, placed in my life by his employer to spy on me and my friends, only to be pulled out without warning after becoming the most central person in my life. All the unanswered questions are finally about to be asked. The delay after delay in one of the least transparent and least ‘public’ public inquiries I have ever seen, leaves me with no hope of getting to the truth. Only a tip of the iceberg will be visible, but it all helps understand what happened to us somewhat.”

    Shockingly the Canary report that, “Over 30 women were deceived into having relationships with undercover police officers. These spies also fathered, then abandoned, children with some of the women. Tom Fowler is another core participant in the inquiry. He told The Canary: Though we have fought for years to get to the point where the inquiry is starting, I have no faith that the process is going to hold anyone or anything to account. If we are lucky some truth might escape despite the best efforts of the chair. Kevin Blowe, coordinator for Network for Police Monitoring (Netpol), told The Canary that the inquiry has “bent over backwards” to enable the police to continue with their decades of lies. He explained: It has been almost exactly 10 years since Mark Kennedy was exposed as an undercover officer. The police said he was rogue: that was a lie, we now know he was part of a long line of infiltrators. They said he was never authorised to have a sexual relationship with a campaigner. We now know that was a lie too.”

    The lies persist… The Canary note that, “The police promised to collaborate with the public inquiry, but shredded a significant quantity of documents. Again, they lied. Does anyone really expect the lies will suddenly stop once the inquiry gets underway? Unfortunately, the inquiry has bent over backwards to accommodate political policing’s desire to hide its many decades of targeting and disruption of campaign groups. We still have no idea what groups exactly were picked out: the inquiry will not publish a list, but initial indications seem to suggest almost anyone who presented a challenge to political or corporate interests. There may be thousands of people out there who have no idea they too knew an undercover officer who lied his or her way into their group or campaign.” The Canary justifiably question, “Are the police still infiltrating activist groups?” The scary thing is why wouldn’t they be? Which then leads to the issue of the CHIS Spycops Bill in Parliament right now; why put such a toxic operation into overdrive?

    The Canary say that, “Blowe told The Canary that many people who know that they were spied upon “have still been given no indication of the officer who gathered information” on them. The police have been hell-bent on obstructing the inquiry, while protecting the anonymity of police spies, and refusing to release the names of 1,000 groups that were spied or reported on. This begs the question: why? Blowe says: Why is it so important for the police to keep secret surveillance from 40 or 50 years ago? Netpol suspects it’s because they don’t want questions about the fact that undercover officers almost certainly continue to infiltrate campaign groups to this day. This inquiry is unlikely to give activists the answers they desperately want, or give any kind of closure to the women who have been abused at the hands of the state. Instead, it is likely to highlight the fact that the state will do all it can to protect its own interests.” The CHIS Spycops Bill will insure that there is no further scrutiny of such operations in future.

    In another Canary Article entitled, “Stephen Lawrence’s family highlights institutional racism in the British police during Undercover Policing Inquiry,” they provide an update on proceedings so far. They report that, “The Undercover Policing Inquiry has continued into its seventh day, with barristers giving statements on behalf of Stephen Lawrence’s family. The family was targeted by police spies. In April 1993, 18-year-old Lawrence was stabbed to death while waiting for a bus with his friend in Eltham, London. The two were attacked by a gang of white youths. It took almost twenty years for two of Lawrence’s killers to finally be convicted of his murder. An inquiry into his death found that the police investigation was institutionally racist and flawed. It traumatised the grieving family even more, and it allowed Lawrence’s killers to largely escape the justice they deserved.”

    The Canary say that, “On top of this, undercover police officers spied on Lawrence’s family after his death. The officers posed as anti-racist activists in an attempt to smear the family. One of the officers, Peter Francis, later became a whistleblower. He said, ‘Throughout my deployment there was almost constant pressure on me personally to find out anything I could that would discredit these campaigns [calling for justice for the Lawrence family].” When this information was exposed the MET was justifiably labelled, “Institutionally racist” and came under heavy public criticism. The Canary note, “During the inquiry on 10 November, Imran Khan QC read out a statement on behalf of Lawrence’s mother, baroness Doreen Lawrence. He said: [Stephen’s] racist murderers… are still alive; not a single police officer was disciplined or sacked, rather they were promoted in their careers or are now enjoying their retirement; and many of those that spied upon Baroness Lawrence and her family have, to date, evaded proper scrutiny.”

    The Canary say that, “Doreen Lawrence also challenged the Metropolitan Police (MPS), who stated that there’s been ‘widespread and lasting change’ within the force. Khan said on her behalf: The reality is that there has been very little change. What change there has been was forced upon the MPS. It has never welcomed it or embraced it. This year Ben Bowling, a professor of criminology at Kings College London, said British policing ‘remains institutionally racist’. He has accused the police of failing to deliver on promises to eradicate racism instead allowing ‘prejudice, thoughtlessness and racial stereotyping’ to continue driving unequal treatment. Black and ethnic minority people are still over-policed and under-protected. Khan continued: Baroness Lawrence does not want mealy-mouthed gratitude from the MPS. If the MPS is sincere it must stop churning out platitudes as it has done so at this Inquiry and take immediate action to implement change.”

    The Canary claim that, “The Lawrence family is under no illusion that the inquiry will give them answers as to why they were spied upon. Khan stressed that Doreen Lawrence has already lost confidence in the inquiry. He said: Baroness Lawrence is exhausted by the number of times that she has been given reassurances and promises. Each appears to have been as hollow as the next and some appear downright hypocritical. Speaking for Stephen’s father Dr Neville Lawrence, Heather Williams QC argued that the family needs answers. She said: Dr Lawrence wants to understand the full extent to which undercover officers accessed his home, his family, his personal information and any legally privileged material… He also wants to know which groups and individuals relevant to the Stephen Lawrence campaign were targeted and/or reported on.” A perfectly reasonable expectation regarding the gross injustice suffered by the Lawrence family may still be denied due to the unforgivable lack of transparency of the inquiry.

    The Canary report that, “Of fundamental importance to Dr Lawrence is understanding why officers found it appropriate to spy on his family and relay so-called ‘intelligence’. He wants to find out who authorised this and what officers thought they were looking for. She added: Furthermore, Dr Lawrence wants to know what part race played; he finds it hard to believe that a bereaved family who was white would have been treated in a similar way.” But the Canary have described this as, “An inquiry shrouded in secrecy.” I abhor the hackneyed expression ‘lessons learned’ as it is generally an indication of a powerful determination to completely ignore the evidence of an investigation or inquiry and whitewash over the sordid details of malice, malfeasance or corruption. For this Tory Government to ram through their CHIS Spycops Bill without fully assessing the harm caused by such operations and putting vital safeguards in place, clearly demonstrates that the priority is to legalize and normalize the criminal force of Dictatorship.

    “The Canary previously reported that the police have been doing all that they can to obstruct the inquiry, while protecting the anonymity of police spies. And they’ve refused to release the names of 1,000 groups that were spied or reported on. On behalf of Doreen Lawrence, Khan said: The fact that the MPS and the individual officers have made applications for anonymity and, more importantly, that they have been granted, is a travesty and goes against everything that a public inquiry stands for and what Baroness Lawrence expected. It appears to her that this Inquiry is more interested in protecting the alleged perpetrators than the victims. One victim of police spying, who is a participant in the inquiry, told The Canary that it’s the ‘least ‘public’ public inquiry I have ever seen’. Nevertheless, the 200 participants will continue to fight, in what’s been a years-long battle, for answers.”

    On Politics Live today Welsh Labour MP Chris Bryant got an opportunity to plug his newly released book entitled, “The Glamour Boys.” While I generally cringe at the prospect of yet another ghastly reflective look at WWII, Chris’s book exposes a very rarely discussed aspect of the confrontation that holds a vitally important historical lesson. Bryant focuses on a select group of gay British MPs who provided an early warning that war with Germany was becoming increasingly inevitable as the Wehrmacht Republic under Hitler was rapidly regressing in an extreme authoritarian and militaristic direction. He described how remarkably liberal Berlin had been in the early 1930s before Hitler’s rise to power, with gay men legally able to express their sexuality without fear of the severe persecution that they faced in the UK at that time. Aware of the start of Nazi persecution of certain sectors of the population once gay men were being targeted, they were among the first to warn Britain about the danger Hitler posed.

    This group of outspoken MPs risked their political careers to take what at the time was a really unpopular stance with their strong resistance to Chamberlain’s appeasement strategy. Host Jo Coburn put Daily Politics guests on the spot, as the discussion forced them to confront the issue of not towing the party line and the importance of all MPs voting with their conscience. She could not have raised the issue at a more critical time, since both major political Parties now appear determined to quash even the slightest deviation from their Leader’s vice grip control. Boris Johnson eviscerated the Tory Party to demonstrate his zero tolerance for the slightest descent from his absolute rule governed by his Machiavellian puppeteer Dominic Cummings. In opposition Labour has suffered the same fate. After Keir Starmer lied and conned his way into power, he decided to reinvent Labour as ‘new Leadership’ forcing members to adhere to his stale centrist vision; Labour went from a ‘broad church to a massive Left exit door overnight!

    Re political descent Coburn asked “Should we see more of that from PMs?” “Yes absolutely” said Peter Cardwell “The greatest thing that MPs have, the greatest duty they have. is to integrity, is to the truth as well as their constituents and the country.” Jo Coburn turned to Tory MP Miriam Cates to ask, “will this inspire you to be more rebellious on things you think aren’t right?” In her mealy-mouthed reply Cates said, “I think what Peter said about integrity is absolutely right, that is absolutely what people should be able to expect from politicians.” Then came her disgustingly cowardly Tory qualifier, “…but having integrity doesn’t mean you never compromise and I think being part of a Party, being part of a political system, means you don’t always push your own point of view above those of other people.” She claimed, “that’s what our political system’s about, it’s about negotiations, compromise, while still maintaining your own personal integrity.” That would be the personal integrity, when the Dom says “Jump,” you say, “how high?”

    It was at that point when Chris Bryant made the most impactful statement that emerged from the Daily Politics debate when he pointed out that, “At the same time Neville Chamberlain was using secret tactics to undermine people and was threatening to deselect them and purge them.” I think both our political parties in the last few years have made attempts to purge people with a different view within their front bench and I think that is really dangerous.” Too right, and it is at a highly dangerous fever pitch on both sides of the House right now. Bryant returned to the lesson from history saying, “One of the precious things we have in our system is that you have a constituency you are responsible for your constituents and to your conscience.” Ominously he then warned, “the other thing for me is we often think that our freedoms are won forever but actually Wehrmacht Germany was the most liberal place in the world and six years later men were being carted off and executed and killed in concentration camps…”

    “Secret tactics to undermine people… threatening to deselect them and purge them,” sounds all too familiar. Daring to accept the nomination to Chair a Committee that the Dom wanted compliant ‘failing Grayling’ to lead was enough for Julian Lewis to lose the whip and Starmer hasn’t even spared the former Leader in his purge or the progressive Labour Left. Such narcissistic, dictatorial Leaders are extremely dangerous as Bryant warns: we need to challenge and remove them both from office ASAP. Since well before the Covert 2019 Rigged Election Johnson under the control of Cummings has been leading the Tory Party down the grim authoritarian path of Dictatorship. We need to fully Investigate that seemingly miraculous ‘landslide victory’ claimed by Johnson, because it is far too incredulous to not be highly suspect. We must demand the Dom’s removal. Cummings is the grenade; oust him and you pull the pin! The window of opportunity will soon slam closed. Act now as It can take decades to remove a Dictator! DO NOT MOVE ON!

    #62237 Reply
    Kim Sanders-Fisher

    Writing in the prime tabloid repository for disgusting bigotry and the vile stoking of racial hatred, Mail on Sunday, in a rant entitled, “Snowflakes? They’re today’s fascists! Jewish writer Stephen Pollard says there’s nothing funny about the march of the PC brigade.” Of all the people to lodge such a complaint, that’s Stephen Pollard, hard-core Zionist editor of the Jewish Chronicle no less! What utterly disgraceful hypocrisy that he has the sheer gall to sound off on limitations to free speech. Criticize Zionism, the illegal theft of Palestinian land, destruction of homes, daily atrocities and the war crimes of the apartheid Israeli regime or just dare mention Israel in a slightly less than flattering light, and you will be hit with a SLAPP suite within hours. For Pollard, Palestinian Human Rights are simply non-existent and ‘Palestinian Statehood’ is just an inconvenient oxymoron that will be crushed with relentless intimidation, bribes and coercion from the well-healed Zionist Lobby that have UK politicians of both stripes well and truly by the goolies.

    Pollard writes, “I know, too, that the Third Reich’s totalitarian impulse – that only one type of question and one type of answer are legitimate, and all else must be extinguished – is far from unique because repressive regimes the world over continue to ban freedom of enquiry and freedom of expression.” What exactly does Pollard think the persecution and repression of Benjamin Netanyahu’s Likud Party has inflicted on the Palestinian people during years of ethnic cleansing within the State of Israel and the occupied territories? Devoid of even the most basic self-awareness he warns, “We must be on our guard. If we close our minds to ideas that upset us, the long-term consequence is that our minds will atrophy.” So that would inevitably include a huge swath of far-right Zionists who are incapable of imagining that non-Jewish people have a right to peaceful coexistence or national autonomy within a huge area of land they insist was granted to them by God at the expense of a people who have lived there for centuries?

    Pollard asserts that, “It is for good reason that a new word entered the Oxford English Dictionary last month: a snowflake is ‘an overly sensitive or easily offended person’.” His next outrageous statement left me gobsmacked as he ranted about, “When the snowflake generation seeks to silence an MP because they disagree with him…” How about ‘Snowflake Zionists’ systematically destroying an entire political party to satiate their obsessive desire to reinvent the news and defend their rogue state from well deserved ‘Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions’ (BDS) for the relentless persecution and ethnic targeting of Palestinians. Pollard claims, “theirs is a dangerous delusion. Because free speech – and the offence which can come with it – is the bedrock of freedom itself…” Unless of course you are unfortunate enough to be Palestinian! Pollard claims that, “We are seeing the stunting of debate, the closing of minds,” but in reality nowhere is this more painfully apparent than with regard to the abarant conduct of the State of Israel.”

    Seething with highly selective indignation Pollard warns that, “The snowflakes are becoming an avalanche. Barely a week now passes without a fresh demand that they be protected from some form of supposedly offensive behaviour in the name of morality and decency.” While he is outraged by the removal of bare boobs from a gallery exhibit, he is totally supportive of bulldozing an entire Palestinian village and rendering dozens of Bedouins and their young children homeless. He demonstratively proclaims that, “We are now witnessing our own version of Newspeak, in which a form of cultural fascism masquerades as caring concern.” This while he remains blissfully oblivious to any concern over permanently, totally eradicating the Palestinians and all their rich cultural heritage from the Middle East! Pollards examples of this affront are petty and miniscule compared to the ongoing brutal atrocities committed by the Israelis in their illegal plundering of land and resources that the UN has decreed belong to the Palestinians.

    Pollard talks with confected distain about university campuses creating, “‘safe spaces’, where students should be protected from the traumatic risk of encountering anything with which they might disagree or take offence.” This is not about refuting that some recent measures have been a bit over the top, it’s the grotesque hypocrisy of Pollard making such a comment after actively trying to prevent students from making a democratic decision to support BDS or trying to ban their discussion of Palestinian rights. Outrageously he claims, “this isn’t just about student politics. It is affecting academia itself.” Pollard cites, “the furore over seminars held by Nigel Biggar, Regius Professor of Moral and Pastoral Theology at Oxford, an expert in his field, who has suggested there might have been some positives to the British Empire.” Pollard leaps to the defence of colonialism, because Zionism is modern day colonialism and he feels a powerful need to defend this outdated model as ‘beneficial’.

    In his faux defence of radical alternative perspectives, Pollard highlights how Nigel Biggar came under attack as an “apologist for colonialism.” Pollard praises “the Vice Chancellor of Oxford University, Professor Louise Richardson, should spell out why free speech and thought are so vital on campus.” Defending her stance, with which I agree, Prof Richardson said she, “had had many conversations with students who were upset they had tutors who expressed a view with which they disagreed… , I say, ‘I’m sorry, but my job isn’t to make you feel comfortable.’ Education is not about being comfortable. I’m interested in making you uncomfortable. If you don’t like his views, you challenge them, engage with them, and figure [out] how a smart person can have views like that. Work out how you can persuade him to change his mind’.” Pollard should pry open his own tiny locked-down mind and engage with a discussion over a genuinely fair peace plan.

    Pollard preaches that, “We should remember how in his novel 1984, George Orwell coined the word ‘Newspeak’ to describe the language used by a totalitarian state that removed the capacity for individual thought and turned words’ meanings on their head. In Orwell’s dystopian world, The Party used slogans such as War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, and Ignorance is Strength. Satire – yes. But a warning, also.” Pollard could try adding, ‘Bulldozers are Renewal,’ ‘Torture is a Tonic,’ ‘Annihilation is Rebirth;’ I am sure the Zionist propaganda machine is capable of generating compelling ‘Newspeak!’ Pollard asserts that, “Demands that only one form of thought is permitted, and that anything which deviates from it is offensive and should be banned, are profoundly dangerous.” An interesting observation coming as it does from an editor as extremely intolerant as Pollard. His publication, the Jewish Chronicle has been found in serious violation of the standards of truthful journalism while spouting hate speech in the past.

    You would think that if freedom of speech was so important to Pollard he might be concerned about the Israeli Lobby and the Board of Deputies gross manipulation of the IHRC definitions of what constitutes anti-Semitism and the efforts to deliberately weaponize the examples to conflate genuine criticism of the Israeli State with an obscure view anti-Semitism. It is these desperate manoeuvres to ban any and all free speech critical of Israeli atrocities that exposes the hypocrisy of Pollard’s poisonous rant. His own warped logic is exactly what he has chosen to rant about, he describes it as, “in reality a form of intellectual totalitarianism.” Pollard warns that, “Without offence and without upset, there is tyranny,” but in effect he is seeking our permission to normalize a far greater tyranny than the fleeting angst over paintings of nude women. His ‘Snowflake Zionism’ takes offence at our horror over the real world pain and suffering inflicted on a deeply traumatized, subjugated people for the naked greed over theft of their land.

    In the Canary Article entitled, “British company JCB’s machines were used in Israel’s biggest home demolition in a decade,” they identify the most recent unprovoked attack that proceeded with ruthless efficiency while the whole world was distracted by the US Presidential Elections. The Canary call out the, “British company JCB’s equipment was used in Israel’s demolition of an entire Bedouin village last week. The demolition was reportedly Israel’s single largest in a decade.” They remind us why we dare not take our eyes of the ball for a second as this brutal enemy of the Palestinians is ready to strike at the most opportune moment: “While all eyes were on the US election, Israeli jeeps and bulldozers rolled into the Humsa al Bqai’a Bedouin community in the northern Jordan Valley. They demolished homes and animal shelters, making over 70 Palestinians homeless. 41 children were left without shelter.” The article includes a video from Israeli human rights group B’Tselem shows the destruction they left behind them.

    The Canary document that the, “Palestinian campaign group Jordan Valley Solidarity (JVS) was on the scene and photographed the equipment used. JVS identified one bulldozer manufactured by JCB, and another manufactured by Volvo.” Trying to embarrass the companies whose equipment is being used to destroy homes in violation of the UN mandate may seem obscure, like desperately grasping at straws, but the world is not watching and the US, although undoubtedly the most powerful influence in the region, is not on their side. For as long as Israel is never sanctioned for their crimes against the Palestinians the atrocities will continue. They say that, “The Israeli military came with jeeps and bulldozers. They ordered us to empty our homes, they only gave us ten minutes. Obviously that’s not long enough to empty even a single tent. We didn’t have time to remove everything. They demolished it with all our things inside.”

    “The Canary contacted both JCB and Volvo asking for comment on the use of their equipment in this military operation. JCB did not reply by the time of publication. Meanwhile, Volvo sent the following response: Volvo products have a long life span, and may be rented out and change ownership many times during their life cycle and we are limited in our possibilities to influence how and where our products will be used throughout their entire life cycle by different end users. We have policies and processes in place with the aim to ensure that we comply with applicable laws and regulations in all countries where we pursue business operations, including sanctions. We have no own operations in the region and our products are sold and serviced by local business partners.”

    The Canary report, “According to research group Who Profits, Israeli company Mayer’s Cars and Trucks is the sole importer of Volvo products into Israel. Volvo already has an agreement with Mayer’s Cars and Trucks that its buses should not be used to transport prisoners. So it seems fair to ask why the company could not make the same stipulation that its equipment is not used in demolitions.” Instead they are knowingly, “Supporting colonisation in Palestine.” The Canary reported in October: “JCB equipment is regularly used by Israeli forces to demolish Palestinian homes. Over 600 Palestinian homes and structures were demolished in 2019 alone. Demolitions of Palestinian homes and property are part of the Israeli state’s colonisation policy in Palestine, and are illegal under international law.” So why isn’t anyone speaking up for the persecuted Palestinians? The powerful and very well funded Israeli Lobby have tentacles reaching out into Governments and political parties all over the world to silence criticism.

    The Canary report that, “Research by UK based research cooperative Shoal Collective showed that during 2019 almost 30,000 Palestinians were affected by demolitions carried out by the Israeli state using JCB equipment. JCB machines also uprooted almost 7,000 Palestinian olive and fruit trees. JCB supplies its equipment in Israel through its Israeli dealer Comasco. Campaigners are calling on JCB to stop supplying equipment to Israeli forces via Comasco. JCB is currently facing an investigation after a UK government body found that a complaint against it by UK charity Lawyers for Palestinian Human Rights (LPHR) is ‘material and substantiated’.” However, campaigners have reached this stage before in a similar ruling against the sale of arms to Saudi Arabia due to war crimes against civilians in Yemen. This rogue Tory Government just ignores such rulings as there is too much money to be made supplying the weapons of subjugation, destruction and death targeting helpless civilians.

    “The Canary previously reported: The complaint was made to the UK National Contact Point (UK NCP). It claims that JCB’s supply of construction equipment used in the demolition of Palestinian homes and property by Israeli forces is in breach of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development’s (OECD) guidelines on human rights. It is trying to force JCB to ensure that its equipment is not used in home demolitions.” The Canary say, “Solidarity campaigners in Sheffield held a demonstration outside a JCB dealership to protest against JCB’s role in the demolitions in Humsa al Bqai’a: One of the demonstrators told The Canary: I read in disbelief and anger last week of the brutal and inhumane destruction of a Palestinian village in the northern Jordan Valley. 41 children left traumatised and homeless, adding to the countless thousands whose lives have been changed forever by Israel’s systematic policy of creeping annexation.”

    The Canary report that, “In Sheffield we are determined that JCB should not get away with its direct involvement in Israel’s war crimes. That’s why yesterday activists visited the main dealership for JCB on the outskirts of Sheffield and left our personal message for the managers of TC Harrison JCB: Shame on you JCB!” The Canary say, “Meanwhile, a coalition of campaigners is calling on the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NSPCC) to stop accepting JCB’s money until the company takes steps to make sure its equipment doesn’t make any more children homeless. According to a press release by the UK branch of the Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions: …[we] argue that the charity’s proclaimed values are rooted in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. Such values are universal, not selective, and apply to all children, not just to British children: Palestinian children matter too.”

    To get people all over the world to sit up and take notice will take a broad range of tactics and a great deal of ingenuity as it is impossible to match the funding available to the Israeli Government. The Canary say, “One thing’s for sure: over the last year JCB has been finding itself more and more in the spotlight because of the way its equipment is used in Palestine. It’s time for the company to bow to public pressure and ensure that JCB machines aren’t used to make any more Palestinians homeless.” This author of this article, “Tom Anderson is part of Shoal Collective, whose research is referenced above. He is also part of the Stop the Demolitions campaign.”

    “The Canary urge you to get involved in the following ways:
    • Check out Palestine Action’s call to action against JCB.
    • Support ICAHD UK’s campaign to persuade the NSPCC to stop accepting donations from JCB and watch their webinar about resisting home demolitions from the UK.
    • Read Shoal Collective’s book, Resisting the Demolitions in Palestine.
    • Find out if your university has investments or partnerships with JCB.”

    In an Al Jazeera Article entitled, “Joe Biden ‘no saviour’ of the Palestinians,” they comment on what to expect from the new US President. They say, ‘Palestinians eye restoration of US relations but scepticism abounds that Biden’s election win marks a strategic American policy change. Several Palestinian news agencies carried statements by Palestinian officials with their perspectives on what President-elect Biden’s victory would mean. Nabil Shaath, the special representative of President Mahmoud Abbas, said the Palestinian leadership does not expect a strategic change in US policy towards the Palestinians, but getting rid of the era of Trump – which he described as ‘the worst’ – is an advantage. ‘From what we heard from Joe Biden and his deputy Kamala Harris, I think he will be more balanced and less submissive to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu – thus less harmful to us than Trump,’ he said.”

    Al Jazeera report that, “Hanan Ashrawi, a member of the Palestinian Liberation Organization’s (PLO) Executive Committee, said while the first step is to “get rid of Trump and the danger he poses’, she stressed Biden will not be a saviour for the Palestinians. ‘The restoration of the Palestinian Authority’s relations with the US after Biden’s victory is under discussion and evaluation,’ she said. ‘Matters do not happen automatically,’ she added. ‘Rather, the list of demands, interests and positions must be determined, and there is a need for a change in many issues.’ Ashrawi said decades of pro-Israel US policy produced the Trump policies. ‘What is required is to change what Trump has done by radically changing the racism and politics he represented, and building a relationship based on a new vision – justice, respect and clarity,’ she said.”

    Al Jazeera note that, “While former President Barack Obama had a notoriously frosty relationship with Netanyahu, Biden’s personal friendship with the Israeli prime minister stretches back more than three decades. While Biden is a strong proponent of the two-state solution, he refuses to leverage US aid to Israel in order to pressure it into abiding by international law. ‘I strongly oppose Israel’s settlement policy on the West Bank,’ Biden told PBS in an interview last year. ‘But the idea that we would cut off military aid to an ally, our only true, true ally in the entire region, is absolutely preposterous.’ Biden also initially opposed the US embassy move to Jerusalem, but has already stated he has no intention of moving it back to Tel Aviv. His administration plans to reopen the US consulate in occupied East Jerusalem to serve Palestinians, as well as the PLO’s mission in Washington, DC, which was shut down by the Trump administration.”

    According to Al Jezeera, “Biden said he will reverse the ‘destructive cut-off of diplomatic ties with the Palestinian Authority and cancellation of assistance programmes that support Israeli-Palestinian security cooperation, economic development, and humanitarian aid for the Palestinian people in the West Bank and Gaza”. But he has echoed the Trump administration by conditioning the restoration of financial aid to the PA only if it halts welfare payments to the families of Palestinian prisoners and alleged Palestinian attackers killed by Israelis. On the issue of the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) movement, Biden is a staunch opponent and characterised it as ‘wrong’ in a speech at AIPAC in 2016. Tony Blinken, a senior adviser to Biden, said last summer the president-elect will push back against the BDS movement as well as efforts to denounce Israel for its violations of international law at the United Nations. ‘Will we stand up forcefully against it and try to prevent it, defuse it and defeat it? Absolutely,’ Blinken said.”

    According to the TIME Article, “Netanyahu Said Trump Was Israel’s ‘Greatest Friend’.” Although, “Israel’s far-right Defense Minister Naftali Bennet tweeted his congratulations to the President-Elect,” his message of thanks to Trump was effusive, “You brought us peace without giving up land,’ he wrote, ‘You made it clear the focus of the region is not the Palestinians. We will never forget this and we will always remain thankful.” We need the US to start setting an example of abiding by International law, respecting and signing treaties in good faith if they want to lean on Boris Johnson to uphold the Good Friday Agreement. An amazingly hopeful era of peace and equality has been sabotaged by cheating Bernie Sanders out of the Presidency in addition to the disaster of the Covert 2019 Rigged Election that deprived the UK of a progressive Socialist Government. We can still Challenge and Investigate the Vote rather than accept corruption; exposing the truth would remove this Tory Government from office to restore Corbyn as PM. DO NOT MOVE ON!

    #62251 Reply
    Kim Sanders-Fisher

    Boris Johnson began Prime Ministers Questions with a tribute saying, “I know the whole House will want to join me in sending our deepest sympathies to the family and friends of Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks, who sadly passed away on Saturday. His leadership had a profound impact on our whole country and across the world. May his memory be a blessing. This morning, I attended the service at Westminster Abbey to mark the centenary of the tomb of the unknown warrior. Armistice Day allows us to give thanks to all those who have served, and continue to serve, and those who have given their lives in service of this country.” Glaringly absent from his PMQ preamble was any mention of the US Election that was belatedly called in favour of Democrat Jo Biden, not his ally Trump.

    Labor MP Ruth Cadbury laid bare a festering wound of Tory incompetence and conscious cruelty by stating that, “According to Home Office figures, just 12% of Windrush victims have received compensation and nine people have died waiting. This is two and a half years after the Windrush taskforce was set up. What will the Government do and what will the Prime Minister do both to rectify this injustice and to ensure that no others who have come to the UK to live and work suffer in the same way as the Windrush victims?” Dismissively the PM replied, “The hon. Lady is right to raise this issue. What happened to the Windrush generation was a disgrace and a scandal, and we are doing our best collectively to make amends. I can tell her I have met members of that generation, and this Government are taking steps to accelerate the payments and to make sure that those who are in line with payments are given every opportunity and all the information they need to avail themselves of the compensation that they deserve.”

    Tory Fiona Bruce raised a typical non-question, eliciting the PMs standard waffle, “Yes, indeed, and I thank my hon. Friend for…” Keir Starmer added to the PMs condolence and remembrance sentiments by raising the, “terrible events in Saudi Arabia this morning.” Starmer gleefully welcomed “the victory of President-elect Biden and Vice-President-elect Harris,” with a not so subtle dig at Johnson’s ‘ally’ Trump, by referring to his win as, “a new era of decency, integrity and compassion in the White House?” He must have been really shocked that Boris Johnson had not tried to egotistically claim the news of a vaccine as a personal triumph, but said, “May I also welcome the fantastic news about a possible breakthrough in the vaccine? It is early days, but this will give hope to millions of people that there is light at the end of the tunnel.” As it was Armistice day he then turned to veterans, “Today is Armistice Day, and I am sure the whole House will join me in praising the remarkable work of the veterans charities such as Help for Heroes and the Royal British Legion.”

    It was a pitch the PM would have difficulty not supporting so Starmer said, “Like many other charities, Help for Heroes has seen a significant drop in its funding during this pandemic, and it is now having to take very difficult decisions about redundancies and keeping open recovery centres for veterans. So can the Prime Minister commit today that the Government will do whatever they can to make sure our armed forces charities have the support that they need so that they can carry on supporting our veterans?”
    The PM evaded any Tory Government commitment or responsibility by saying, “I echo entirely what the right hon. and learned Gentleman says about Help for Heroes; it is a quite remarkable charity and does wonderful things for veterans. In these difficult times, many charities are, of course, finding it tough, and in addition to what the Government are doing to support charities through cutting business rates on their premises and cutting VAT on their shops, I urge everybody wherever possible to make online contributions to charities that are currently struggling.”

    Starmer didn’t let it drop, “I thank the Prime Minister for his reply. The truth is the Chancellor’s package for forces charities was just £6 million during this pandemic, and that is just not sufficient. May I ask the Prime Minister to reconsider that support on their behalf, because at the same time we have all seen this weekend that the Government can find £670,000 for PR consultants?” High time Starmer began drilling down on the grotesque misspending of public money squandered on contracts inappropriately awarded by this Government to their Tory cronies without any tendering, oversight or accountability. Starmer said, “that is the tip of the iceberg: new research today shows that the Government have spent at least £130 million of taxpayers’ money on PR companies, and that is in this year alone. Does the Prime Minister think that is a reasonable use of taxpayers’ money?”

    Boris Johnson tried to divert attention from the obscene plundering of public funds by linking it to the positive news of a vaccine breakthrough, saying, “I think the right hon. and learned Gentleman is referring to the vaccines taskforce, and after days in which the Labour party has attacked the vaccines taskforce, I think it might be in order for him to pay tribute to it for securing 40 million doses. By the way, the expenditure to which he refers was to help to raise awareness of vaccines, to fight the anti-vaxxers and to persuade the people of this country—300,000—to take part in trials without which we cannot have vaccines. So I think he should take it back.” It was a familiar tactic, cover the latest incompetence and corruption by moving in the opposite direction and then turning any lack of resounding support into a gross deficiency on the part of the opposition for which they must bear shame.

    Johnson’s typical, ‘your guilt not mine’ trick always stops Starmer in his tracks and he starts into pathetic defensive grovelling, “Nobody is attacking individuals, everybody is supporting the vaccine, but £130 million, Prime Minister: there is a real question about the way that contracts are being awarded and about basic transparency and accountability. I know the Prime Minister does not like that, but this is not the Prime Minister’s money; it is taxpayers’ money. The Prime Minister may well not know the value of the pound in his pocket, but the people who send us here do, and they expect us to spend it wisely. Let me illustrate an example of the Government’s lax attitude to taxpayers’ money. Earlier this year, the Government paid about £150 million to a company called Ayanda Capital to deliver face masks. Can the Prime Minister tell the House how many usable face masks were actually provided to NHS workers on the frontline under that contract?” Starmer had rallied to launch an even more specific attack.

    Predictably Johnson rolled out his standard excuse, “We are in the middle of a global pandemic in which this Government have so far secured and delivered 32 billion items of personal protective equipment; and, yes, it is absolutely correct that it has been necessary to work with the private sector and with manufacturers who provide such equipment, some of them more effectively than others, but it is the private sector that in the end makes the PPE, it is the private sector that provides the testing equipment, and it is the private sector that no matter how much the Labour party may hate it, provides the vaccines and the scientific breakthroughs.”
    Keir Starmer was not about to be fobbed of with opportunistic Tory ‘crisis’ excuses and generalities; he had a prime example of their squandering and he was going to spill the beans: “The answer is none: not a single face mask—at a cost of £150 million.” But there was more… “That is not an isolated example.” At long last it would seem Starmer is presenting robust opposition.

    Starmer was on a roll, “We already know that consultants are being paid £7,000 a day to work on test and trace, and a company called Randox has been given a contract, without process, for £347 million; that is the same company that had to recall 750,000 unused covid tests earlier this summer on safety grounds. There is a sharp contrast between the way the Government spray money at companies that do not deliver and their reluctance to provide long-term support to businesses and working people at the sharp end of this crisis. The Chancellor spent months saying that extending furlough was ‘not the kind of certainty that British businesses or British workers need’—[Official Report, 24 September 2020; Vol. 680, c. 1157]— only then to do a U-turn at the last minute. Yesterday’s unemployment figures show the cost of that delay: redundancies up by a record 181,000 in the last quarter. What is the Prime Minister’s message to those who have lost their jobs because of the Chancellor’s delay?”

    The PM was on the ropes… “With great respect to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, he knows full well that the furlough programme has continued throughout this pandemic. It went right the way through to October; it is now going through to March. It is one of the most generous programmes in the world, with 80% of income supported by this Government and an overall package of £210 billion going in to support jobs, families and livelihoods throughout this country. I think this country can be very proud of the way we have looked after the entire population, and we are going to continue to do so. The right hon. and learned Gentleman should bear in mind that the net effect of those furlough programmes—all the provision that we have made—is disproportionately beneficial for the poorest and neediest in society, which is what one nation Conservatism is all about.” He had deftly avoided any response to the accusation of recklessly squandering public money – another question asked but not answered as esual.

    Starmer was making much better use of his questions to attack the PM over issues the public remains truly outraged over; PMQs is not about the space number of MPs in the Chamber, it’s about the media take on what gets raised. Starmer was pummeled Johnson, “The Prime Minister must know that because the furlough was not extended until the last minute, thousands of people were laid off. The figures tell a different story: redundancies, as I say, at a record high of 181,000; 780,000 off the payroll since March; the Office for National Statistics saying unemployment is rising sharply—so much for putting their arms around everybody. The trouble is that the British people are paying the price for the mistakes of the Prime Minister and the Chancellor. If they had handed contracts to companies that could deliver, public money would have been saved. If they had extended furlough sooner, jobs would have been saved. If they had brought in a circuit breaker when the science said so, lives would have been saved.” This was a good triple slam!

    Starmer wasn’t finished, “Let me deal with another mistake. The Chancellor has repeatedly failed to close gaps in support for the self-employed. Millions are affected by this. It is bad enough to have made that mistake in March, but seven months on, the Institute for Fiscal Studies says the scheme remains, its words, ‘wasteful and badly targeted for the self-employed’. The Institute of Directors says: ‘Many self-employed…continue to be left out in the cold.’ After seven months and so many warnings, why are the Chancellor and the Prime Minister still failing our self-employed?” The PM vaulted from his pathetic ‘crisis’ excuse to standard bragging mode, “Unquestionably, this pandemic has been hard on the people of this country, and unquestionably there are people who have suffered throughout the pandemic and people whose livelihoods have suffered, but we have done everything that we possibly can to help. As for the self-employed, 2.6 million of them have received support, at a cost of £13 billion—quite right.”

    The PM was sounding desperate adding, “We have also, of course, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows, uprated universal credit. That will continue until next year. He now champions universal credit, by the way, and calls for its uprating to be extended. He stood on a manifesto to abolish universal credit.” Replace it with a benefit system that is fit for purpose more like, but that was not the point Starmer went after when he replied, “The Prime Minister just doesn’t get it. I know very well that the self-employment income support scheme has been extended, but the Prime Minister must know that that scheme simply does not apply to millions of self-employed people. They have been left out for seven months. There is a real human cost to this.”

    Starmer identified one of those affected saying, “This week on LBC, I spoke to a self-employed photographer called Chris. He said to me: ‘Our…industry has been devastated… Three million of us that have fallen through the cracks… Our businesses are falling—absolutely falling—and crashing each day.’ He asked me to raise that with the Chancellor. I will do the next best thing. What would the Prime Minister say to Chris and millions like him who are desperately waiting for the Chancellor to address this injustice?” This was perhaps Keir Starmer’s single most impressive performance at PMQs as he took full advantage of the questions allotted to him; if only he was this aggressive in his questioning every time. Johnson appeared dazed by the volume and ferocity of opposition questioning, but he knew that Starmer’s quota was done. It was the PMs time to dismiss the virulent attack and proceed with his routine effusive PR spin aimed at the media hoping they would compliantly drown out Starmer’s attacks with positive vaccine news.

    The PM said, “What I would say to Chris, and what I say to the right hon. and learned Gentleman and to the whole country, is the best way to get his job working again, the best way to get this country back on its feet, is to continue on the path that we are driving the virus down. It is a week since we entered into the tough autumn measures that we are now in. I am grateful to the people of this country for the sacrifices that they are making, and I am particularly grateful to the people of Liverpool and elsewhere—tens of thousands of people in Liverpool are taking part in the mass testing work that is going on there. It is fantastic news that we now have the realistic prospect of a vaccine. Science has given us two big boxing gloves, as it were, with which to pummel this virus, but neither of them is capable of delivering a knockout blow on its own. That is why this country needs to continue to work hard, to keep discipline and to observe the measures that we have put in.”

    In a shameless denial of the battering he’d just endured from Starmer, Johnson said, “I am grateful for the support that the Labour party is now giving for those measures. That is the way to do it: hands, face, space; follow the guidance, protect the NHS and save lives.” Tory Laurence Robertson offered much needed ‘stoking’, “As we and all countries across the world tackle the pandemic, is it not right that we also have to secure our post-EU future? Are we not doing that by securing help for our rural communities and securing our borders?” Relieved the PM replied, “Absolutely; I thank my hon. Friend. I can tell him that the landmark Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill receives Royal Assent today, thanks to this House, paving the way for the fulfilling of our manifesto commitment to end free movement and have a new, fair points-based immigration system, one of the advantages of leaving the European Union that the right hon and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) would of course like to reverse.”

    The Speaker said, “Let us head up to Scotland and the leader of the SNP, Ian Blackford.” Joining the debate via zoom, Blackford said, “May I associate myself with the remarks of the Prime Minister on the death of Rabbi Jonathan Sacks? This being Armistice Day, we commemorate the day 102 years ago on the eleventh hour of the eleventh month when the guns fell silent and all those who have paid the ultimate sacrifice in conflict since then.” He too took the opportunity to congratulate the US President saying, “I also want to send our best wishes to Joe Biden and Kamala Harris on winning the election in north America. I look forward to the leadership they will show on the issues of climate change and fighting back against covid among other things.” All our MPs and Party Leaders know that their congratulations in the House of Commons during PMQs will be reported on by the US media, which is what makes Boris Johnson’s embarrassing failure to offer his congratulations such a petty-minded undiplomatic snub.

    Blackford continue, “The figures published by the Office for National Statistics yesterday demonstrate what the SNP has been warning about for months: that the UK faces a growing Tory unemployment crisis. It is now beyond doubt that the Chancellor’s last-minute furlough U-turn came far too late for thousands who have already lost their jobs as a result of Tory cuts, delays and dither. UK unemployment has now risen to 4.8%. Redundancies are at a record high and nearly 800,000 fewer people are in employment. To support those who have lost their incomes, will the Prime Minister now commit to making the £20 uplift to universal credit permanent and to extending it to legacy benefits, so that no one, no one, Prime Minister, is left behind?”

    In a disgraceful demonstration of his total lack of self-awareness Johnson yet again attempted to conflate opposition demands to plug the gaping holes in the dysfunctional Tory benefit system as a resounding endorsement chronically failing Universal Credit. It was extremely insulting when the PM replied, “I am delighted that the right hon. Gentleman, the leader of the Scottish nationalists is now supporting universal credit. He was opposed to it at the last election. Yes, of course that uplift continues until March. I am delighted to say that the furlough scheme is being extended right the way through to March as well. That will support people across our whole United Kingdom, protecting jobs and livelihoods across the whole UK in exactly the way that he and I would both want.”

    Blackford was having none of it, this would not be an easy PMQs for the PM as he once again came under attack over gaps in UC, “May I respectfully say to the Prime Minister that the idea is that he tries to answer the question that has been put to him? It is shameful that the Prime Minister still refuses to give a commitment to the £20 uprating of universal credit. The SNP will continue to demand a permanent U-turn on Tory plans to cut universal credit. Another group who have been left behind by this Prime Minister are the 3 million people who have been completely excluded from UK Government support. Since the start of this crisis, the Prime Minister has repeatedly refused to lift a finger to help those families. In the run-up to Christmas, those forgotten millions will be among those who are struggling to get by and are worried about their future. Will the Prime Minister finally fix the serious gaps in his support schemes to help the excluded, or will he make it a bitter winter for millions of families across the United Kingdom?”

    There was no commitment from the PM to bail out the impoverished masses, “The right hon. Gentleman knows, I hope, that we are not only continuing with the uprating of universal credit until next year, but we have invested £210 billion in jobs and livelihoods. We have also just brought forward a winter support package for the poorest and neediest: supporting young people and kids who need school meals, and supporting people throughout our society throughout the tough period of covid, as I think the entire country would expect. That is the right thing to do and we will continue to do it.” It was the usual BS. Tory ‘levelling up’ is all about plundering from the working poor to enrich the wealthy elite; it is the same old austerity scam under new Orwellian ‘Newspeak’ misnaming! When will the public catch on to the truth? When will we question the ‘borrowed votes’ that led to an unfathomable ‘landslide victory’ in the Covert 2019 Rigged Election? We need to fully Investigate all of the Tory corruption before it is too late: we must Get the Tories Out Now! DO NOT MOVE ON!

    #62281 Reply
    Kim Sanders-Fisher

    After fighting like rats in a sack the hard core crash-out rats are deserting the sinking Brexit ship as we careen full speed towards the ‘Titanic success’ iceberg! These vermin will not want to be around to suffer the acrimony or the consequences of the almighty mess they have inflicted on the people of this country. However, despite his sudden exit earlier today Dominic Cummings, the vilest of those insidious rodents will still continue to satiate his veracious appetite for power and wealth from a privileged position, while distancing himself from the impending Tory Government fallout. The Dom will have had this eventuality all mapped out just in case. The country will suffer, ordinary working people and their families will experience severe hardship, but there will be a highly paid assignment for Cummings to continue sopping up the gravy train of cash with all of the other wealthy Tory elite. The Covid crisis has been a real money spinner for the rich; crash-out Brexit is designed to consolidate absolute power and protect their wealth.

    In the FT Article entitled. “Johnson tells Cummings to leave Downing St immediately Fears in Number 10 that PM’s former aide and Brexit architect will turn against him,” they picture “Dominic Cummings leaving 10 Downing Street on Friday carrying a cardboard box containing potentially dangerous secrets.” It would certainly have been possible for Cummings to exit the building in a more discrete fashion, so we should see this highly publicized image of the former Chief Adviser for what is was, a stunt engineered by Cummings rather than by the PM. With the armed police escort of Sonja Khan, it was Cummings himself who set the precedent for the US style ‘walk of shame’ exit that’s designed to intimidate and strike fear into fellow employees. Now the instigator of the non-colligate, ‘my way or the highway,’ dictatorial work environment is hitting the road, probably still in possession of all his electronic devices. That dramatic press photo was a deliberate attention getter, the picture trailer for what Cummings intends to do next.

    The FT say that, “Dominic Cummings, Boris Johnson’s chief adviser and architect of Britain’s exit from the EU, left his desk in Downing Street for the last time on Friday carrying a cardboard box and a trove of potentially dangerous secrets.” The cliff hanger, “what’s in that box?,” is purely symbolic, because the real dirt Cummings has on the PM and the Tory Party will have been carefully preserved on Dominic’s Laptop, backed up on memory sticks and a secure hard drive. The press are salivating over what type of sleaze they can coax out of the disgruntled former Spad, because that is there bread and butter to feed to the public. However, I doubt titbits like that would have constituted a sufficiently serious enough concern for Johnson to go out on a limb to keep his Chief Adviser in post after lockdown violations that severely compromised public trust in the Government’s messaging and damaged the PM’s own credibility. Johnson knew Cummings had critical Kompromat on him; we could well find out what in the next few days.

    The FT report that Johnson had, “told Mr Cummings to leave Downing Street after a week of acrimony at the heart of government, marking the end of an era in which Vote Leave officials dominated Mr Johnson’s operation. Mr Cummings’ decision to walk out of Number 10 after what one official called ‘a day of tantrums’ raised concerns that the adviser might turn against Mr Johnson and lift the lid on a chaotic administration. One government insider said: ‘I won’t be surprised if there’s an explosive stunt between now and Christmas.’ A colleague of Mr Cummings said: ‘It’s not Dom’s style just to quietly drift away’.” They say that, “Mr Cummings declined to comment but he has never shied away from using his private blog to seek revenge on those who have crossed him.” We should consider far more that Dominic’s vindictive nature, as, like Johnson, he is a supremely egotistical individual who will be driven to expose the extent of his own brilliance regardless of the fallout; that is what could bring down this government.

    According to the FT, “Lee Cain, Mr Johnson’s communications director, also quit his job on Friday. Mr Cummings resigned after Mr Johnson indicated that he was going to cut loose the Brexit campaigners who had sustained his rise to power and helped him win an 80-seat Commons majority in December last year. Mr Johnson held a 45-minute meeting with Mr Cummings and Mr Cain on Friday to discuss their ‘general behaviour’ this week, according to individuals with knowledge of the conversation.” They say that, “In tense exchanges, Mr Johnson accused his aides of briefing against him and his partner Carrie Symonds and criticised them for destabilising the government in the midst of tense Brexit negotiations. Mr Johnson showed the aides text messages that had been forwarded to Ms Symonds, who opposed Mr Cain’s appointment as chief of staff, to show they had briefed against her. He told them to get out and never return.”

    Several important points should bother us here, the fist being that this sounds more like a schoolyard spat than a Prime Minister directing his underlings. Another major issue to emerge from this sorry mess is the prominence of Carrie Symonds, the young girl friend of the PM. Although she has held communications roles in the past it is highly irregular for an unelected love interest of our Head of State to exert significant influence over his decision making. Apparently Symonds has been sending the PM quite literally dozens of texts every hour on various issues she has decided to input on. We do not need one unelected puppet master replaced by another inappropriate unelected influencer who will drag Boris around by his ‘Johnson!’ If Boris wasn’t such a thoroughly selfish misogynist, who has shown complete disregard for women, then I might believe that he had courageously rode in like a knight in shining armour to defend the honour and integrity of a damsel in distress, but Johnson is totally devoid of such noble motivations.

    Worryingly, the FT report that, “Tory officials said Mr Cummings and Mr Cain would continue to do some work for Number 10 until mid-December but were expected to operate from home.” It is concerning that this shambolic team will continue to exert residual influence for some time to come; a totally clean break would have been a severe jolt, but a less chaotic way forward, The FT say that, “Mr Johnson, who refused to make Mr Cain his chief of staff, is looking to usher in a more consensual style of politics in 2021, more in tune with the conventional politics returning to the US under president-elect Joe Biden.” The timing for this might give more of a clue to what has just occurred. The election victory of Jo Biden will have been a blow for Johnson who felt far more at ease when the US was governed by a reckless populist just like himself. Trump will not be the only one expected to “put on his big boy pants,” as Biden will have little tolerance for Johnson’s unruly style of diplomacy and chaotic governance.

    According to the FT, “Mr Johnson’s remaining team inside Number 10 is braced for Mr Cummings’ revenge. Vote Leave advisers have complained privately about the prime minister’s inability to make big decisions and his lack of grip on detail. ‘I’m told there is a blog coming. Spads [special advisers] are preparing about how to respond,’ said one official. ‘It’s really the last days of Rome in here.’ Some say that Mr Cummings, who became frustrated at the slow progress in implementing his own agenda of civil service reform, defence reforms and science projects, will seek to blame Mr Johnson. ‘Dom is going to have to face up to the fact that after spending years writing millions of words in his blogs, he has achieved nothing in government,’ said one ministerial adviser.” Why was a Special Adviser allowed to become so powerful that he was able to dictate policy to the PM, fire people and dissolve whole departments? The real issue is can some of the catastrophic disruptions instigated by Cummings be stopped in their tracks or reversed?

    Brexit hangs precariously in the balance this week and political commentators are reading a lot into that aspect of the timing of these key Vote Leave departures. The FT report that, “Downing Street has insisted that Mr Johnson is not going to back down in trade negotiations with the EU, in spite of the acrimonious departure of Mr Cummings and other Brexit hardliners. Mr Cummings’ resignation comes ahead of a crucial phase in Brexit talks in Brussels next week, prompting speculation that the prime minister might have more political space to make the concessions needed to close a deal. But Mr Johnson’s allies rejected any suggestion that he would soften his stance, saying that while the prime minister wanted a deal, it would only be concluded if the EU fully respected British sovereignty. ‘Policy will not change on this,’ Downing Street said. The prime minister fears that Brussels might misread the bitter power struggle in Downing Street as a sign of a weakening resolve in the trade talks.”

    I am convinced that Johnson is as firmly committed to crash-out Brexit as Cummings was. The FT report that, “’The PM is always the toughest voice in the room on Brexit,’ one official said. Philippe Lamberts, a member of the European Parliament’s Brexit co-ordination group, said the ructions in Downing Street were a positive sign that Mr Johnson wanted a deal with the EU. The post-Brexit transition period ends on January 1. ‘I do believe indeed that he’s making the choice of a deal,’ Mr Lamberts told the Financial Times. ‘This puts him on a collision course with hard Brexiters such as Dominic Cummings’.” I do not share Lambert’s optimism regarding the PMs intentions in the Brexit negotiations. It will be interesting to see if Johnson reinserts the controversial wording removed by the House of Lords from the Internal Market Bill, his stand on that may indicate his true intentions.

    The FT report that, “Kim Darroch, Britain’s former ambassador to Washington and Brussels, said any ‘weakening of the hold on policy’ by Mr Cummings and his Vote Leave cadre of advisers would be a good thing. Lord Darroch said that, if there were no trade deal, Britain could enter 2021 at odds with the US, the EU and China. US president-elect Joe Biden thinks Brexit is a bad idea and could harm the Northern Ireland peace process. Speaking at the FT Global Boardroom event, the former envoy said: ‘Where exactly are our friends in this brave new world? That ought to worry us.’ Many Conservative MPs celebrated the departure of Mr Cummings, who has publicly spoken of his contempt for many Eurosceptic Tory MPs. ‘Rejoice,’ said one MP, while another added: ‘Good riddance.’ Edward Lister, Mr Johnson’s longstanding ally from his days as London mayor, will be the new chief of staff in Downing Street for an interim period, pending a permanent appointment.”

    Cummings, the unelected manipulative Chief Adviser to our narcissistic PM has functioned as a totally unrestrained chaos creator, wrecking ball while not even being a member of the Tory Party! The Dom is ruthless; so with zero allegiance to the Conservative Party he could very easily scupper the ship if his vindictive, control-freak mind is offended by an untimely or humiliating departure. I continue to believe that Dominic Cummings has a tranche of very serious Kompromat on Boris Johnson and the Tories regarding engineering the Covert 2019 Rigged Election that delivered the miraculous fake Tory ‘landslide victory,’ despite the deplorable track record of massive failures in governance and a truly disastrous election campaign. After suffering a decade of conscious Tory cruelty, exploitation and being deliberately driven into destitution, we are expected to believe that the working poor voted to extend their misery because the new Brexit fantasy was so much more important than whether their children were forced to starve: really?

    Sure there was a huge amount of negative propaganda defaming Corbyn, but Boris is an acknowledged serial liar leading a party of naked opportunists. One major red flag for me was the lack of attention paid to the supposed victorious winners. This was highly irregular; a news reporter’s attention should be focused on the victors with interviews zeroing in on why they won. Look at the huge attention being paid to Joe Biden and the Democrats in the US; we aren’t overwhelmed by incessant interviews with Republicans demanding that they must explain why they lost! In reality the result of the Covert 2019 Rigged Election never was credible, but the biased BBC helped the Tories sell the deception by not asking Johnson or other Tories to explain the key to their shock victory, but instead forcing multiple Labour MPs to grovel in contorted explanations of why they suffered a humiliating defeat! The press took a megaphone to this fake news. Asked how in hell they managed to win Labour seats Tories invented the ‘borrowed votes’ lie”

    There are two major reasons why evidence might suddenly emerge from an ‘anonymous source’ to fully reveal how the UK postal votes were stolen in some cases and blocked in others. The first is that Cummings in a venomous rage turns Whistleblower. As the strategist who informed them where they needed to gain a lot more votes and exactly how many votes it would take to win marginal seats, Cummings could then still take credit for his claimed ‘genius’ while denying any real involvement in the actual operation to rig votes. The Dom was smart enough to realize right from the onset that he could not trust Boris Johnson or Gove not to toss him under the bus once he had outgrown his usefulness; he would have covered his tracks extremely carefully when he planed how to blackmail the PM to stay in post. The extraordinary lengths the Johnson went to in refusing to fire Cummings when he clearly broke the law over lockdown was a solid indication that a force stronger than the PMs nonexistent sense of loyalty was at stake.

    The second possibility is liberated due to Cummings removal ending an era of intense, very threatening, intimidation that kept all number 10 staff, who might have had access to vital evidence, from speaking up. The likelihood of any Whistleblowers coming forward is also controlled by whether they would be believed or not and unfortunately that is swayed by public opinion in general which is in turn is driven by the vested interests within our predominantly right wing Media. It is unfair to blame a Whistleblower for not exposing the truth if they know they will not be believed, their revelations will not correct serious injustice, they will be severely persecuted for daring to speak out and it could even put their life at risk. This might sound melodramatic, but it is a sad reality and why the progressive Left push-back, nationwide protest campaigns and robust opposition is so vitally important. I continue to write every day because I am driven by the prospect of a knowledgeable Whistleblower coming forward and I want to be there for them.

    It has been a truly momentous day today with Dominic Cummings gone an aggressive cancer was excised from the heart of the UK government. The really exciting thing is that in the next week investigative reporters will be on exceptionally high alert and supper receptive to anyone ready to spill the beans. The hyper attention on Cummings makes the big shake up at Number 10 the number one story right now. Massive exposure demonstrating that the Covert 2019 Rigged Election was engineered through the industrial scale fraud of the Tory Party would totally delegitimize Boris Johnson at a critical time when the EU could legitimately say this is a deal breaker, but in everyone’s best interests an extension is possible. If Trump had remained in office Johnson could have had an ally to help him fudge through the scandal, but with Biden as President there will be pressure exerted on the UK to fully Investigate the Election results if corruption is exposed. Cummings is the grenade; they ousted him so the pin has been pulled! DO NOT MOVE ON!

    #62317 Reply
    Kim Sanders-Fisher

    Don’t trip over the painfully obvious: Cummings’s full frontal exit with the large cardboard box was a stunt, but who was it staged to benefit? At first I thought it must have been a Cummings photo-op come-on for dastardly divulging of insider secrets damaging to the PM. But, it is important to understand that the PM and his security team control that front exit door, who uses it and precisely when due to lurking press. This begs the question, why did Johnson allow such a petty display of acrimony to taunt the Media and drive wild speculation when this was avoidable? Is the PM’s very public bust up with his Chief Adviser just a ruse to move him out of Number 10 during this critical final week of negotiations with the EU, but into an equally influential and powerful clandestine role at a remote location? Could the PMs Machiavellian puppet master still be pulling the strings in an even more sinister and secretive way while deliberately detracting from the intended breakdown of Brexit talks leading to the planned crash-out in the New Year?

    “Boris Johnson accused Dominic Cummings of briefing against him and Carrie Symonds, his fiancée” is the slop the media are peddling. I certainly do not believe that such an arch chauvinist as Boris Johnson was so incensed over insults to his girlfriend that he fired a Spad who had on an earlier occasion severely damaged his own standing as PM through blatantly illegal rule breaking! Even if he took offence at certain comments, it would not override the principal concern for this ultra narcissistic PM who believes the entire universe revolves around him and sod everyone else… For Johnson women are worthless idiots, useful only for sexual gratification and PR value, to be used, abused and tossed aside on a whim for a newer model with greater assets. Only one person matters to Boris and that is Boris. So ditch that noble image of Johnson riding in on a white charger to defend Ms Symonds from the upset of nasty texts; it just would not happen because the PM doesn’t give a toss about women’s feelings, reputations or hurt.

    Sarcastic tweets abound on Twitter, the brilliant team from ‘Have I Got News For You @haveigotnewsforyou’ Tweeted that, “BREAKING: As Dominic Cummings leaves No 10 with immediate effect, the government is advised to wait 14 days to make sure he’s completely gone.” A joke yes, but a huge reality concern for those of us who see this latest drama as just a fabricated ploy to deliberately distract the public from far more pressing issues like the soaring Covid death toll and the impending crash out of the EU while Cummings remains on the shadows. ‘Double Down [email protected]; took another dig Tweeting, “BREAKING: Peston & Kuenssberg lose anonymous government source.” The ‘FDA [email protected]_union’ Tweeted, “Everything Cummings did as a special adviser was done in the Prime Minister’s name” @FDAGenSec has told @mattfrei that Johnson “can’t hide from the fact it was his policy, essentially, which was to create this toxic atmosphere’ and he must decide No.10’s approach going forward.”

    In addition,’‘David [email protected]’ Tweeted, “It wasn’t Cummings who sold the Brexit lies – Or condemned a woman to jail in Iran – Or compared Muslim women to ‘letterboxes’ – Or lied about an ‘oven ready deal’ – Or presided over the worst Covid death toll in Europe and giving billions to cronies not experts. That man’s still there.” Dr Phil Hammond @drphilhammond Tweeted, “Mr. Johnson was particularly riled by newspaper reports of Ms. Symonds being referred to by ¬Cummings loyalists by nicknames including ‘Princess nut nuts’. In other news, excess deaths in the UK are at 70,000 this year and we still don’t have a deal with the EU with a week to go.” Predictably ‘A C [email protected]’ also focused on the imminent Brexit disaster, Tweeting, “Total UK contributions to EU since 1973: £215 billion (return value: £3.25 trillion – CBI figure of £70 billion pa X 45 years), Total expenditure on Brexit since 2016: £203 billion (return value: wreckage of economy, international pariah status, loss of rights & freedoms).”

    In the Guardian Article entitled, “Boris Johnson boots out top adviser Dominic Cummings,” they tout the popular line, “Source says aide’s instant departure came after he was accused of briefing against PM. Boris Johnson has ordered Dominic Cummings to leave Downing Street with immediate effect, in a dramatic end to a tumultuous era which leaves a void at the heart of Downing Street. Cummings and his ally Lee Cain, both ardent Brexiters blamed by MPs for a macho culture and a series of communications crises, were asked to step down on Friday instead of staying in place until Christmas. Special advisers were said to be delighted by his departure.” I can well imagine they would be after Cummings created a toxic atmosphere of intimidation that was brutally punctuated by the humiliating removal of Sonja Khan marched out of Number 10 under armed police escort without even bothering to consult her boss, the then Chancellor Sajid Javid. Khan has just won a timely out-of-Court settlement for wrongful dismissal!

    The Guardian report that, “The prime minister was immediately urged to appoint an MP as his permanent chief of staff to help heal deep divisions with backbenchers amid warnings that his parliamentary party risked becoming ungovernable. Sir Edward Lister, Johnson’s chief strategic adviser, would become interim chief of staff until there was a permanent appointment, No 10 said. Cummings and Cain will continue to work for Downing Street until mid-December, with one source saying Cummings would be ‘working from home for six weeks’.” So Cummings is still in a potential position of influence and probably raking in a massive salary while continuing to cause significant harm; that is so reassuring; not! They say, “The turmoil comes in the middle of a pandemic whose official UK death toll surpassed 50,000 this week, and days from a looming Brexit deal deadline.” In reality the actual death toll is far higher, but we are being deliberately distracted from these critical issues by the ‘rats in a sack’ infighting at Number 10.

    Someone else who will be pleased to see the ‘Herd Nerd’ gone is Professor Ashton. In a mid October Video posted on Doubledown News Professor John Ashton called out this Tory cabal as “The Most Incompetent Government of My Lifetime.” He was the Prof. who shocked the Question Time audience with his dire predictions as he called for the UK to enter lockdown. In the video Ashton talks of recognizing early on the dangers we were facing and the steps we should start taking to halt the spread of the virus; Fiona Bruce tried to shut him up. He advised on simple measures that should have been adopted, like sanitizing computer keyboards and our smart phones; all things I ranted about in the very beginning. The Tories are now talking beyond the new late lockdown of a circuit break with the Cummings team. Ashton he was promoting that strategy shift weeks ago he said, “The circuit that needs breaking is the clique that’s running this disaster.” Professor John Ashton’s must read new Book ‘Blinded by Corona’ is out now!

    Our oh so unreliable press are consistent across the board. The Guardian Article, “PM accused Dominic Cummings of briefing against him, sources claim,” is a mirror image of multiple reports. Are the public being duped into thinking Boris Johnson, yes that truly disgusting misogamist Boris Johnson, was defending the sensitivities of a lady? They say, “Boris Johnson accused Dominic Cummings of briefing against him and Carrie Symonds, his fiancée, during a tense 45-minute showdown before the adviser’s departure, according to sources.” Meticulously well briefed sources must now try to sell Johnson to the nation as a super sensitive Mr nice guy! Belatedly decisive to boot in giving the boot to the ‘bad guys: “The prime minister’s senior adviser left Downing Street with his belongings in a cardboard box on Friday evening. Lee Cain, Downing Street’s director of communications, was also told to leave.” The ‘bad guys’ and their toxic agenda are still hatching their plots, now discreetly underground to protect the rats nest.

    In what is increasingly looking more and more like a confected story line the Guardian claim that, “Johnson held a meeting with Cummings and Cain to discuss their ‘general behaviour’ where he is understood to have accused his aides of briefing against him and his partner. The Prime Minister also accused the pair of destabilising the government in the midst of Brexit negotiations ahead of a crucial phase in talks in Brussels next week, the Financial Times reported.” They say, “Government sources have denied the fractious talks took place. Cummings told the Telegraph that claims the prime minister had accused him of briefing against him as ‘an invention’ and said: ‘We had a laugh together’.” They could be laughing all the way to the bank as is normal within Tory circles!

    The Guardian say, “However, the tenor of Cummings’ dramatic ousting by Johnson will raise fears that the adviser may not display the discretion expected of a former aid.” They reiterate a government insider’s comments to the FT: “I won’t be surprised if there’s an explosive stunt between now and Christmas,’ and a ‘colleague of Cummings’ who had said: ‘It’s not Dom’s style just to quietly drift away’.” Are gullible members of the public being primed for a ‘dead cat’ timed to distract from the definitive culmination of futile Brexit ‘negations’ ending by preordained design with an impending crash-out without a deal? There are likely to be reports across the spectrum warning us of the catastrophic consequences of no-deal Brexit for working poor and ordinary citizens in this country. The challenge for the Tory Party is to bury all of that shockingly bad news with titbits of inconsequential fake news and what I now refer to as ‘handyfloss!’A dead cat helps Tories fulfil that goal, but Social Media and alternative News outlets help us to fight back.

    The Guardian report that, “Conservative officials said Cummings and Cain would continue to be employed by No 10 until mid-December but were expected to work from home. Cummings’ ‘work from home’ project is expected to focus on Covid-19 mass testing for the next six weeks.” That is Cummings’s pet money squandering ‘moonshot’ project to launch Tory plundering into the stratosphere! One interesting observation highlighted by the Guardian bears out my own conclusion about the PM, Cummings, or both of them working in collusion, deliberately fabricating a stunt for press and TV cameras. They say, “Cummings’ theatrical exit on Friday through the No 10 black door, having formally resigned on Thursday, came despite his office being at 70 Whitehall.” We are expected to worry about what was in that cardboard box in anticipation of the next carefully contrived stunt: the ‘dead cat!’

    Again we are told by the Guardian that, “Downing Street said that Cummings’ departure would not impact Brexit talks. The prime minister’s official spokesman, James Slack, insisted suggestions the government could compromise on key principles in the wake of Cummings’s decision to leave were ‘simply false’.” I do not doubt for an instant that thus really is true, because the plan from the second Boris Johnson became PM was to force the UK into a no-deal crash-out Brexit and this is the week he has to ram that bitter medicine down the throats of all those who will suffer the most, hence the need for a ‘dead cat.’ The Guardian remind us that, “Cummings was widely perceived as the mastermind behind the victorious Vote Leave campaign in the 2016 referendum.” What they leave unsaid was that Cummings engineered the Covert 2019 Rigged Election to deliver Boris Johnson his fake ‘landslide victory.’ When will we finally challenge that vote, fully Investigate the corrupt result, delegitimize the PM and Get The Tories Out?

    The Chinese whispers continue as the Guardian report that, “Sources told the Daily Telegraph that Cummings told allies that the prime minister was ‘indecisive’ and that he and Cain had to rely on Michael Gove, the Cabinet Office minister, for leadership.” To counter such accusations, “Johnson’s allies accused Cummings of ‘trying to blame everyone but himself’.” In reality the British people are fast discovering the truth, that the blame lies fairly and squarely with the Tory Party resulting from their obsession with absolute power and excessive personal wealth.

    In the Guardian Article entitled, “The going of Cummings seems not to be the triumph he expected,” Archie Bland elaborates on Dominic Cummings’s unattained goals saying, “The PM’s top adviser eyed a government transformation, but what will be the legacy of his ‘brutal’ reign?” He points out that, “The usual maxim for political advisers is a simple one: you go when you become the story. For Dominic Cummings, inevitably, the rules are a little different. During the Barnard Castle affair, in the face of popular disgust and days of disastrous headlines, he clung on to his job. Until Friday night, that is. Now somebody else will become Boris Johnson’s best known adviser.” It was a dangerously unhealthy situation as the general public have become thoroughly convinced that this unelected Chief Advisor had become more powerful than the Prime Minister and was essentially dictating policy to him.

    Bland reports that, “Uncharacteristically for Downing Street press briefings, the source for this news had a name. ‘My position hasn’t changed since my January blog,’ Cummings told the BBC’s Laura Kuenssberg on Thursday night, referring to the lengthy online post in which he said that he intended to be ‘largely redundant’ within a year. But while his leaving may technically adhere to that declaration, it could hardly be said to follow its spirit. The condition of his redundancy, as he explained it then, was nothing less than a transformation in how Downing Street works, a revolutionary replacement of stuffed shirts and mandarins with ‘weirdos and misfits’. That change would simply free him up to focus on the decisions that lay within his ‘circle of competence’, not quit altogether. Instead, coronavirus happened. And the inciting incident for Cummings’ exit appears to be not his own triumph – but the arrival of a new press secretary.” Well that is what we are all expected to believe anyway.

    Bland quotes, “He’s nowhere near done,” said Jill Rutter, senior fellow at the Institute of Government. “Yes, he’s chopped off the heads of quite a few civil servants, but he’s replaced them with fairly conventional people, by and large. And if you want to be a serious government reformer, you don’t go after a year. Even if you’ve planted the seeds, you don’t know if anybody else is going to water them.’ Those who are sceptical that Cummings was ready to go point to the fact that he only took up his place in a grandly titled ‘mission control’ centre in the Cabinet Office in September. ‘It hardly seems plausible to suggest that the aim was to set up the office and barely sit in it,’ one former minister said. Many backbenchers are pleased to see Cummings leave – with the 1922 Committee vice-chair Charles Walker telling the BBC: ‘There has been unhappiness about the No 10 operation for some time. Members of parliament have felt excluded from the decision-making process, and that’s no secret’.”

    According to Bland that same, “former minister expressed dismay at the fact that Boris Johnson had stood by his man after the Guardian and Daily Mirror revealed in May that he had broken lockdown guidelines to visit his parents in Durham – only for Cummings to leave within six months regardless. In the aftermath of that story, confidence in the government in England plummeted, a major Lancet study found. Senior police leaders reported that those breaking lockdown would often cite Cummings when confronted by officers. ‘To think of the bridges burned and the damage done in the service of keeping this one rather brutal individual in a job, and to think that he is now leaving anyway, is just astonishing,’ the former minister said. ‘It confirms what we have known for a long time: Boris only knows what he wants to do for the next 10 minutes. There is no serious plan’.”

    Other have noted that the abrasive approach Cummings has exulted in – and the accompanying lack of alliances outside of his closest circle – may have finally cost him. As the backbencher Andrew Bridgen said earlier this year: ‘They say if you want a friend in politics, get a dog – well, Cummings would kick the dog as well’.” Who will be shoved into the spotlight to diffuse this negative this negative story on Sunday morning? Will it be encouraged to fester with vague statements keeping the public guessing entil the Tories see fit to drop their ‘dead cat; distraction story? They could not accomplish this feat with a fully functional press corps of conscientious investigative journalists, but where have they gone? We need them to return and ask important questions on behalf of the public. We also need a functioning opposition offering robust criticism and demanding answers about how our public money is being squandered on lavish contracts to Tory cronies. Starmer did better this week, but he is still a sell-out and he needs to go! DO NOT MOVE ON!

    #62318 Reply

    All very well, yes a lot of chaff to hide the main story. Background: Labour neutered with serious infighting, Starmer ineffective. Tories hate to show their divisions in public but many now resent that Johnson has abandoned collective cabinet government and wider involvement of the party having grasped all power to his small circle of advisers and personal friends. Yes both Thatcher and Blair did away with collective government, but both were hardworking and intelligent not lazy and stupid.(disclaimer I don’t like either of them just quoting their success). But even these successful leaders were got rid of in the end. I think the Tories are beginning to tell Johnson that he has now had his bash, either perform or we will kick you out, that and only that, rather than the silly excuses given is the reason. Probably not many were happy with the public disdain he showed to Theresa May in parliament and he was given a warning . This is more meaty and worth covering up. I don’t believe for a minute that Cummings influence will still be there.I think there is also a higher chance that a deal will now be worked out miraculously.
    Johnson has also made some powerful enemies, his virtual constructive dismissal of Sajid Javid was likely to be avenged one day and maybe this is starting already.

    #62353 Reply
    Kim Sanders-Fisher

    SA – I don’t want to be diverted by the spin; there is obviously something in the offing that the Tory need to resort to such shallow distraction. Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never… undermine the functioning of the entire Government in the middle of the cataclysmic pivotal point of not just one, but two of the most serious national crisis events since WWII: the global pandemic and the self-inflicted disaster of crash-out Brexit! But that would be a pragmatic Government determined to put the best interests of the British people first not dominated and led by heartless, selfish narcissists grappling for power, control and insatiable personal greed. The performance of Johnson, Cummings and the corrupt cabal in Downing Street rival the deranged, chaotic ‘me first’ dictates of Trump who is thankfully now being excised from the US Presidency. Cummings undermined a vital public health message in the midst of lockdown, but to Johnson that crime was excusable, move on… Now we are told a teasing nickname that would be shrugged off by teenagers in the playground precipitated his removal: I don’t buy it, this was a ‘dead cat’ distraction stunt!

    Labour MP Diane Abbot, who knows a thing or two about abuse, would consider “Princess Nut Nut” a form of endearment! Several of the BAME MPs have endured relentless abuse including directly from the Prime Minister, so while Number 10 is not made of glass he is in no position to throw stones. The PMs sexually derogatory and racially offensive slurs have increased community tensions, incited violence and led to brutal attacks. Boris Johnson’s own shamelessly bigoted articles have hyped–up a toxic fever-pitch of various types of ‘othering’ throughout the UK that the hard-right Tory Party hyenas continue to feed on. These same vile hate spewing tabloids are now over-egging a petty affront as if the quirky title “Princess Nut Nut” was so deeply traumatising to Boris’s latest girlfriend that it genuinely warrants days of front page news coverage as we go into another national lockdown to control an intense second wave of Covid19 and enter the final week of fruitless negotiations with the EU. Johnson: get a fxxxing grip!

    There is no real substance for the Downing Street spat to coalesce around; just like candyfloss that is spun into an impressive volume of sickly sweet nothingness, this is more ‘Handyfloss!’ The vacuous drivel fed to the public by the Government compliant press and biased BBC to tool us around in the desired direction of abandoning self-preservation for toxic Tory spin. We have been here so many times before that we really should have learned not to fall for such hype. The ‘fantisemitism’ handyfloss persuaded the public to abandon a genuinely principled progressive Socialist and his inspirational agenda for a serial liar with an empty slogan and a commitment to the Newspeak ‘levelling up’ of rebranded austerity to exploit and ‘decimate down.’ Cummings’s illegal trip to Durham was sold to us as a caring father putting his family first. Boris’s apparent outrage over petty insults to his girlfriend is meant to persuade us that he is a sensitive, caring partner, despite his serial philandering even during his wife’s battle with cancer.

    We need to maintain a laser like focus on the underlying reason for this very demonstrative display being dragged out in the papers with such extreme faux importance. Cummings’s staged front door exit from Number 10 carrying a light weight, posibly empty, cardboard box was the tell: we were meant to take note and draw certain conclusions that the press could then embellish over the coming days. This reminded me of when an interview was staged to sell the Skripal lies, and a fashion conscious young lady appeared far too eager for us to notice a really ugly tracheotomy scar on her neck. What are we not noticing when we look the other way to follow such obvious distraction techniques? Is this a last push in the Tory Government’s pretence of honest negotiations with the EU; the lead up to convincing the British public that the EU is so vindictive and determined to punish us that the catastrophic consequences that lie ahead are entirely their fault? The promised ‘oven ready deal’ has vanished, breaking an international treaty is inevitable, but not our fault! Iwish I could believe otherwise, but I do not.

    In the Canary Article entitled, “Downing Street departures will have no impact on Brexit talks, claims minister,” they say that, “The dramatic exit of Boris Johnson’s senior adviser Dominic Cummings will have no impact on crucial Brexit negotiations, environment secretary George Eustice has claimed. After days of turmoil in Number 10, which saw the exit of the prime minister’s right-hand man Cummings and Johnson’s director of communications Lee Cain, Eustice insisted talks with the EU on a future trade deal would not be affected. Speaking to Sky News’s Sophy Ridge On Sunday, Eustice said: The negotiations have been led by David Frost from the beginning. He’s got a very talented, experienced team of technical experts around him. He’s led these negotiations from the start and obviously remains in place and continues to do so. So I don’t actually think the departure of Dominic Cummings makes any impact on the negotiations, since Lord Frost has been leading those.”

    The Canary report that, “Eustice said next week is ‘a week when things need to move’ for the UK and EU to agree to a trade deal. He added: Both sides recognise that time is very, very short. It’s not long ago we were saying we needed to get some kind of conclusion by the middle of October. People have persevered with these talks. There does come a point frankly where businesses need to know what they are preparing for. The comments came after it appeared Johnson will attempt to reassert control over his government by meeting with concerned Conservatives following a power struggle which saw two of his closest aides leave Downing Street.” The Tories are still peddling the line that, “Chief adviser Cummings exited Number 10 amid claims he had briefed against Johnson and the PM’s fiancée Carrie Symonds,” as if this was an earth-shattering moment for reflection rather than a desperate attempt to get us all to look away while the prosperity of our country is flushed down the toilet!

    The Canary say that, “The Sunday Times reported the PM will “attempt to get his premiership back on track” by establishing a policy board that will appeal to northern working class voters who helped Johnson win last year’s general election. The paper said the group will be chaired by MP Neil O’Brien, who helped former chancellor George Osborne devise the much criticised Northern Powerhouse, and added Johnson will meet the Northern Research Group of MPs on 16 November to listen to their concerns. It comes after leading Tory MPs urged the PM to use the change of personnel to ‘reset the Government’ following complaints the party and parliament were not being heard during the time Cummings held sway.” So the same snake oil salesman who helped Osborne con the north into believing they would no longer be neglected will rebrand the exact same con trick under a rebranded PM campaign touting a commitment to ‘levelling up’ while in reality pursuing a policy of aggressive ‘decimating down.’

    Following on from the ‘borrowed votes’ lie that supposedly led to the fall of Red Wall Labour constituencies in the Covert 2019 Rigged Election, we are now being led to believe that these are constituents who the Tory Party must court to keep in the fold in the hope they will vote Tory next time. Although a thorough Investigation of the result would dispel the myth by exposing the stolen postal votes that challenge has yet to be presented. If this priority is ignored then there is no need to change the flawed Electoral system that allowed industrial scale fraud so the integrity of any future election is equally in jepody of corruption. Beyond feeding the illusion that there will be a free and fair election in four years time is the reality that they don’t need to call one. The Tories don’t need to placate the north, the working poor or their most reliable elderly voters culled by the ‘Holocaust in Care…” Their manifesto pledged to abolish the Fixed Term Parliament Act; to replace it with? Tories have seized the absolute control of the Dictatorship! They don’t need to placate the north, the working poor or their most reliable elderly voters culled by the ‘Holocaust in Care!’

    The beauty of Brexit for the Tories is the complete evisceration of UK democracy; the so called ‘Henry the eighth powers that allow ministers to alter laws at will by circumventing Parliament altogether. The emergency powers during this pandemic have greatly accelerated these arbitrary powers especially with regard tp the allocation of public funds that are now all being channelled into Tory coffers. Whole the Tories rail about taking back control from unelected bureaucrats in Brussels they have conned the British puvlic unto ceding power to elite Tory autocrats in London who will make a mint out of exploiting the working poor. Elections can be abandoned, postponed or rigged to keep the Tory Dictatorship in power for decades if we do nothing to derail this corrupt agenda.. Many countries throughout the world will suffer a severe economic recession due to the Covid 19 Pandemic, but the UK will add the severe self-inflicted economic hardship of crash-out Brexit fragging the country into a prolonged period of cultural regression.

    The Canary quote Dominic Grieve’s misgivings regarding Dominic Cummings. They say that the, “Tory former attorney general Dominic Grieve was scathing about Cummings’ time at the centre of power. He told Times Radio: I consider that he’s created mayhem in government. The whole of his period in government has been marked by a slide in standards so that the Number 10 press office has been used as a vehicle for distributing smears, untruths and lies which was very obvious in the autumn of last year and the period around prorogation and the run up to the general election. This year it’s difficult not to say that he’s created nothing except chaos with the Prime Minister. Whether it’s the handling of Covid and his own behaviour, whether it’s the Internal Market Bill because quite apart from being utterly wrong in violating international law, that has blown up in the face of the Government and led to a massive rebellion in the Commons and the House of Lords and something of a crisis associated with that.”

    According to the Canary, reports of “tensions were heightened in Downing Street when the prime minister was shown ‘hostile texts’ briefing against Symonds, which had been forwarded to her. Theresa May’s ex-chief of staff, lord Gavin Barwell, also said the departure could lead to more harmonious relations between the PM and Tory MPs. Referring to the prime minister, Barwell said: It feels to me that there’s an opportunity here for him to get his Downing Street operation more harmonious and more effective. To rebuild relations with Conservative MPs, the parliamentary party and, perhaps, to set a less confrontational and more unifying tone, that is maybe more in tune with his natural instincts. While May’s chief-of-staff, Barwell himself was accused of creating ‘chaos’ between the PM and MPs. Johnson has been accused of adopting a confrontational tone throughout his career.” I remain sceptical because that staged exit had to have been by consensual agreement as a PR stunt, but to what ultimate end?

    The Canary report that “Edward Lister was announced as the interim chief of staff pending a permanent appointment, with the Times reporting chief Brexit negotiator Lord Frost, Lord True, and Lord Bridges are each being considered for the role. The PM’s official spokesperson James Slack insisted Johnson was not being distracted by the row.” Of course not it is only necessary to totally distract the gullible public with this confected eternal strife squabble. When will the furore subside? As soon as it is no longer needed as a politically motivated distraction tool or a lot sooner if we call it out as horseshit! The Canary remind us that, “The dramatic events have come as Brexit heads to a crucial phase next week, as London seeks a trade deal with Brussels before the end of the transition period on 31 December.” I would not characterize the Number 10 spat as a ‘dramatic event,’ name calling on texts isn’t a national emergency, 70,000 excess deaths is; as is our demise after crash-out Brexit: wake up and smell the coffee!

    Boris Johnson has just now been contacted by Track and Trace as he has been in close contact with an infected MP, so he was told to self-isolate for 14 days. Wow, how extremely convenient for him! He can disappear into his secluded bunker and pretend his zero accountability shambolic non-governance is OKM in this key week of Brexit negotiations; a great time to go to ground avoiding those pesky press interviews. He could do Prime Ministers Questions on Wednesday via zoom, but don’t count on it; the part time PM needs very little excuse to dodge scrutiny. He ducked scrutiny during the election campaign, refusing a gruelling interview that hurt his opponent Jeremy Corbyn who was peppered with defamatory fantisemitism slurs. Boris even ducked into a fridge to evade questioning. Boris Johnson was never fit for office even at times when he was not sick; I doubt he was ever sick, an artful dodge. This whole week is so contrived we cannot accept the media hype. Cummings is gone, both Johnson and Starmer need to go too!

    #62392 Reply
    Kim Sanders-Fisher

    Breaking News: Boris Johnson has selected a more comfortable place to hide than a refrigerator without leaving the country! There is a tough and tumultuous week ahead which, for the PM, routinely means time to take a hike and maintain an extremely low profile while dumping on Ministers to front the harsh media challenges for a couple of weeks. The PM is such a serial liar, focused as he always is on PR spin, it’s understandable that we might question whether he was exposed for a second time or even if his dramatic bout with Covid earlier this year was just a stunt? The ‘Dom with a box’ stunt allows Johnson to offload all blame for the hostile and combative atmosphere in Downing Street and the disastrously shambolic policy rollercoaster onto the retched ‘Herd Nerd,’ who the public already detest. The much touted ‘reset’ is primarily about drawing a definitive line under ten months of catastrophic mistakes and frantic U-turns as if Johnson and his Tory Government are not at all responsible for the 70.000 excess deaths in the UK!

    The Critic Article entitled, “Dominic Cummings’s 2020 vision,” They ask, “Why didn’t Dom do data?” They say that, “The departure of Dominic Cummings from Boris Johnson’s administration will, we’re told, provide an opportunity for a ‘reset’. Certainly there’s likely to be a change of tone, if only because it would be hard to find anyone else who is as determined to have a fight with absolutely everyone. Or at least tell us that, or have their friends tell us that.” This is supposed to signal a reassuring relief from the aggressive, confrontational politics to… the standard misogynistic, homophobic, vile racist, Boris Johnson that we can all learn to choke down because he is a bit of a clown. There are many who do not enjoy being on the receiving end of his not at all funny put downs that promote ‘othering’ and social division in this country. If he is so offended by his current girlfriend being called “Princess Nut Nut” why can’t he see the need to apologise for all of the many deeply offensive slurs he has committed to print in the past?

    The Critic say that, “the government’s deepest problem will remain. Indeed, it predated both Johnson and Cummings’ arrival in Downing Street, though they are its parents. Brexit was marketed by Johnson and Cummings as a policy with no short-term economic harms. It’s a problem exposed whenever we ask the prime minister’s office for an estimate of the economic impact of the government’s proposed Brexit model. Trust me on this: economic modelling matters to governments. Because even if you choose not to add the numbers up, they don’t go away. Margaret Thatcher would have known this. She’d have employed homely, personal-to-national metaphors involving pocketbooks. Alfred Sherman would have found the requisite bit of Dickens – ‘Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty-pound ought and six, result misery’. These are traditional Tory themes.” I think that portraying the UK economy as comparable to personal finances was a vile Tory excuse for greedy, ideologically driven austerity!

    Regarding Tory MPs the Critic report that, “Their underlying truths are really still there whenever a minister pops up talking about an ‘Australia-style’ Brexit deal, for example. The problem is not that the government isn’t telling us the truth. It’s that it’s not telling it to itself. The government can offer estimates of the economic benefit of its trade deal with Japan, for instance, but it has nothing to say about the likely impact of leaving the European single market. This is not because there is no one in the Treasury capable of performing such a calculation, or because there are no economic models for what happens when a country introduces barriers to trade. The only reason that the calculations haven’t been published can be that the government doesn’t want to know the answers. Whatever the virtues of Brexit as an idea, it was marketed by Johnson and Cummings as a policy with no short-term economic harms. Theresa May never felt able to contradict that idea, and Johnson certainly has no interest in doing so.”

    According to the Critic, “Cummings of course set himself up as the enemy of self-deception. He had seen others indulge in it: Tories, Remainers, Brexiteers, sphinxes without riddles, the media, Bismarck’s enemies (I guess), classic third-rate suck-up-kick-down sycophants presiding over shambolic courts. Unlike fey, Oxbridge-educated OEs, such as David Cameron (riddleless sphinx) and Ed Llewellyn (c.t-r.s-u-k-d. sycophant), who didn’t even aspire to shamateurism, Cummings was the illusionless man. He was going to be different; he had read Moneyball. He was going to find out the hard truths about the British government and look them in the eye. Civil servants, like all functionaries in bureaucracies, know better than to believe such statements. All bosses say they want to be told hard truths, but clearly not all of them do. Nor, whatever they might tell themselves, or have their friends tell others, can all advisors, I mean, bosses, handle being told the truth by their subordinates.”

    The Critic elaborate, “Sometimes the truth has to be escorted away from your presence at gunpoint, as Churchill so very nearly put it. Johnson’s government has revealed its preference not to hear some difficult things, so it is reasonable to assume it won’t want to hear other difficult things either. This is a government that would prefer to hear comfortable things than true things. This, to taste, Nelsonic blind eye, or wilful, frightened disinclination to look your triumphs square in the face, has been sustainable on Brexit because of Britain’s transition limbo. But customs forms are stubborn things. With our final departure from the EU now weeks away, the government finds itself building lorry parks in Kent for queues that ministers can’t quite bring themselves to admit will exist. Businesses are urged to prepare, but the language is of ‘opportunities’ and a ‘new start’. The ads are confusing because they can’t admit the reality, that moving things in and out of the country is about to get harder and more expensive.”

    The Critic report that, “Of course, officials know the truth of their models. In this way, parts of government have come to resemble the Soviet Union: there is a reality that appears in public statements, and a reality around which people are working, and no one can mention that the two aren’t the same. Once upon a time, being clear-sighted about the world round you was a point of pride for Conservatives. And even for – they tell us, or have their friends tell us – people-who-aren’t-members-of-the-Conservative-Party too. Though these people who aren’t Conservatives do so very often always seem to end up working for the party. But again, we must return to self-deception and its foes. For realistic Tories, ‘Havel’s Greengrocer’ was a core parable, warning against the degradation of a political system that makes you lie and affect to not notice lies, and rubs your face in the fact that that’s just what you’re doing.”

    The Critic say that, “Ministers may tell themselves that this refusal to face facts is strictly limited to one area. On other issues, they may say, they want to hear the unvarnished truth. But even if this were true, it’s a message that’s unlikely to have reached officials. The clear signal from the top is that this is a government that would, on the most vital of subjects, prefer to hear comfortable things than true things. Which leaves us with the great irony of Cummings’ time running Downing Street: a man who was an evangelist for the idea of finding the truth in data oversaw an operation that suppressed data, for fear it might reveal the truth.” Sadly as we careen towards the preordained disaster of crash-out there are few opposition voices shouting loudly enough and demanding the crucial data. Intimidation of those who dares to challenge Tory “Will of the People” propaganda has to be aggressively dismissed. Brexit is no longer the will of the people and accurate data re the consequences could stop the lemmings piling over the cliff edge!

    In a Critic Article, written by Tory MP Steve Baker at a time when the PMs Chief Adviser’s transgressions were far more serious, and entitled “Boris: take back control, Steve Baker calls on Dominic Cummings to go,” the writing looked to be on the wall for this controversial Spad. But no, Boris Johnson bent over backwards to excuse his lawbreaking upsetting a huge sector of the British public. Baker describes, “Today’s newspapers are a disaster. Enormous political capital is being expended saving someone who has boasted of making decisions beyond his competence and who clearly broke at the very least the guidance which kept mums and dads at home, without childcare from their parents, and instead risked spreading the virus by travelling.” Unforgivable given the massive personal sacrifices of families all over the country, many had not been able to say goodbye to loved ones. Callous, mean and grotesquely insensitive to the collective pain on the population Cummings was universally hated for his exceptionalist cheating.

    Baker wrote, “It is intolerable that Boris, Boris’s government and Boris’s programme should be harmed in this way. Three changes are immediately required. First, the Government needs competitive expert advice. It is obvious that if Oxford’s Professor Sunetra Gupta or Sweden’s Professor Johan Giesecke had determined the scientific advice of SAGE, measures to stop the virus would not have been so hard nor gone on so long. In a year, it seems likely we will look back and ask, not why we were slow going into lockdown, but why we were so slow coming out. Why was so much predictable economic carnage fomented? Why did official policies allow so many people with urgent non-COVID health problems to die without care? How could a Government so focused on our NHS have allowed waiting lists to increase by millions?” I believe it wasn’t so much the lockdown, but the huge misdirection of priorities that was at fault. Now, with a second national lockdown, another set of misdirected priorities has prevailed.

    Baker seems to salute Gove’s distain for experts or at least cherry-pick those he finds credible in order to meet his preconceived ideas of what is right and the acceptable way forward; he totally slams well respected Professor Neil Ferguson. He writes, “We need to embrace the truth that experts fail too. Professor Roger Koppl has set out the perfectly reasonable explanations why experts get things wrong. We need to learn what Feynman taught, ‘Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.” He suggests to, “then establish competing teams so Prime Ministers and Cabinets can select the advice which does least harm and most good. Second, scandalous incompetence must be expunged from the implementation in software of scientific theories. Superb dissections of the junk code which implements Professor Neil Ferguson’s frequently-wrong model have been written. However brilliant and correct science may be, it is worse than useless – positively harmful to millions – if it is coded badly.”

    We should remember that Ferguson was not a freak outlier, but one of a range of experts contributing to projections about a virus we knew very little about; erring on the side of caution is wise. In defence of his blasting Professor Ferguson out of the water Baker touts his own credentials. He boasts that he, “was a professional airworthiness then software engineer once upon a time: anywhere else – be it the RAF or investment banking – requires seriously good code for seriously important things. Government and academic science must now pass that threshold too. This is a lesson we have learned the hardest way possible. Government must insist in law on software engineering standards commensurate with the task of steering public policy imposed on millions of people by force of law. And no area of policy can be immune: both epidemiology and climate change must be supported by open, high quality software which engenders confidence not derision. Work must start immediately on defining those software standards.”

    This next sentiment is really difficult to choke down coming from a filthy rich, blatantly self-serving Tory who in the majority of his decisions in Parliament does not put any ordinary, working poor, constituents first. Baker says, “Third, everyone in senior political office must make the right decisions, for the right reasons, in the right way and carry them to completion with the right techniques. We must have no more ‘hollow men’ leaning together with heads filled with straw, whispering together the same vapid tropes handed to them by a strongman to whom they have sworn fealty. Neither can we have in backroom power a dominant figure who regards accountability with contempt. One who venerates science beyond reason and whose response to every serious problem is, metaphorically, to drag someone into the public square and chop off their head. I refer, of course, to Dominic Cummings.”

    With an inside take on the campaign Baker says of Dominic Cummings, “As Vote Leave geared up, I watched with admiration his actions there from a desk in their open plan office. To work for Dom, to obey, is to be respected, to be part of a brilliant, driven team.” This runs counter to my own strong belief in the advantages of collaborative brainstorming; I believe I gain far more from those who criticise my ideas than from those eager to reassure me. Baker says, “Dominic cultivates heartfelt and ferocious loyalty, as Vote Leave’s board found when they rightly tried to sack him for regarding accountability with disdain. And that, right there, is why I have always opposed Dominic being in Number 10. Not because he lacks talent: he is brilliant. Not because he is weak: his resolve is absolute. Not because he shrinks from wreaking great and terrible things: he stops just beyond the civilized limit. Indeed, Dominic Cummings taught me a great deal to apply in his absence, in the period of my life when I needed to be ruthless.”

    However, even his admirers admit he is a wrecking ball with Baker saying, “Dominic Cummings must go before he does any more harm. But I always made myself accountable to more senior colleagues. As far as I am aware, among those who work with, rather than for him, only Michael Gove enjoys Dom’s respect. So it is hardly surprising when mums and dads were going without the childcare provided by their parents – perhaps while they were isolating for 7 and 14 days with COVID19 symptoms – that Dominic was suiting himself with a long drive, presumably with stops, to get help during his illness. After all, he said we should vote for the original Withdrawal Agreement without reading it, on the basis Michael Gove articulated: we could change it later. But now with him in power, we are putting in a modest border in the Irish Sea.” Hey a lose canon is a lose canon Steve, your genius wrecking ball is wrecking havoc with Covid strategy, democracy, Brexit and beyond; such is the deadly power of Dictators and their sycophants!

    Baker Reveales: “We were told Dominic was not involved in Team Boris. We were told he would not be Chief of Staff. We were told he would go after we left the EU on 31 October 2019.” But Baker reports, “here he is: the man who failed to get us out of the EU on time but did enormous collateral damage along the way. Clinging on as Chief of Staff in a pantomime of his own making, burning Boris’s capital when it is most needed. Seeing to it that the media are sneered at and the police are attacked for doing their duty. To get his way. Enough is enough. I and others saved him once before when he was driving Vote Leave to implosion. Not today. Dominic Cummings must go before he does any more harm to the UK, the Government, the Prime Minister, our institutions or the Conservative Party. Time is up. It is time for Dom to resign so Boris can govern within the conventions and norms which will see us through. It is time to get competing expert advice, decent software and better decisions, end the lockdown and start a long, hard recovery.”

    While I am certainly no fan of Conservative MP Steve Baker, the preceding article provides an interesting insight into what even the most radical members of the European Research Group (ERG), thought of Dominic Cummings; was this powerful cannon really considered to lose for the main armoury! Is Cummings truly gone for good or has he just faded from public view? Now a convenient scapegoat for Tories to publicly decry if he can slip into the shadows to continue his Machiavellian manoeuvres in dismantling our democracy: why not? We cannot relax our guard based on an all too public exit and tales of a defining spat that could all be just a deliberately distracting ruse. The Tories have been planning a no-deal crash-out Brexit all along; will the Biden Presidency rock the boat? We cannot count on it and must continue to demand greater transparency and an Investigation into the Covert 2019 Rigged Election. Even with Cummings gone, this Tory Government is rotten to the core and we desperately need to Get The Tories Out! DO NOT MOVE ON!

    #62424 Reply
    Kim Sanders-Fisher

    I had hoped that Jeremy Corbyn would make a more definitive stand against the overwhelming tsunami of seriously overblown fake news ripping apart the Labour Party that was profoundly ant-racist under his watch, but it seems he has cautiously rowed back on his truthful pronouncements of ‘exaggeration.’ It provides false legitimacy for the fantisemitism lies and strengthens the resolve of hateful opportunistic Zionists who seek to drive a wedge through the Party spliting it apart for the far-right. I sincerely doubt that the level of unwarranted public humiliation, vilification, self-flagellation and grovelling Corbyn has offered will be considered sufficient for the powerful Zionist Lobby and the BOD to cease its savage mauling of the Labour Left and their inspirational former Leader. Corbyn remains so dedicated to the Labour Party, with his judgement so clouded by the aspiration of unity that he continues the failed tactic of appeasement. When will he realize that the only way forward is to fight back and refuse to publically deny the truth?

    The LabourList Article entitled “Corbyn on suspension: ‘I hope this matter is resolved as quickly as possible’,” will be seized on by the perpetrators of the fantisemitism lie to sink their racist teeth even deeper into the flesh of the progressive Labour movement. They report that, “Jeremy Corbyn has released a fresh statement on the subject of his suspension from the Labour Party in which he expresses hope that ‘this matter is resolved as quickly as possible’ and clarifies his comments.” Sadly, his statement does not clarify the genuine truth of what he originally articulated. They say, “He was suspended nearly three weeks ago after claiming that ‘the scale of the problem was also dramatically overstated for political reasons by our opponents’ in his response to the Equality and Human Rights Commission report.” This was a clear statement of fact that the Mainstream Media have universally refused to fact check so that it can now be disposed of as untrue.

    LabourList say that, “The report on Labour antisemitism had found that the party was responsible for ‘unlawful acts of harassment and discrimination’ and ‘serious failings in leadership’ during the time that Corbyn was in charge.” Despite the fact that the EHRC stated that Corbyn had an absolute right to make the truthful evaluation of the report without being penalised, Starmer used it as an excuse to remove his predecessor and totally expunge his progressive ideas from the Labour Party in a vindictive purge of the Left. Ignoring the officially correct procedural response Starmer was too cowardly to even admit his opportunistic targeting of Corbyn. They say, “A Labour spokesperson announced on October 29th that Corbyn was being suspended by the party due to ‘his comments’ and ‘his failure to retract them subsequently’, and the Islington MP had the whip removed.”

    LabourList say, “Referring to his Facebook post on the day of the EHRC report, Corbyn has now said: ‘I regret the pain this issue has caused the Jewish community and would wish to do nothing that would exacerbate or prolong it.” Sadly his humble attempts to defuse the situation will embolden the rabid right of the Party and their Zionist backers and it will not be in the best interests of any Jewish citizens in the UK and it will help obscure the unfettered Israeli persecution of the Palestinian people. Although I am sure his new statement was well motivated when he said, “To be clear, concerns about antisemitism are neither ‘exaggerated’ nor ‘overstated’,” this is only true on a case by case basis, not as an honest assessment of the totality of the complaint level which has indeed been grotesquely over exaggerated for disgusting political reasons in a targeted attempt to discredit Corbyn and remove him from power. Appeasement will never bring the dishonesty to an end; it strengthens the rampant racial hatred of the Zionists.

    He had meant that, ‘The point I wished to make was that the vast majority of Labour Party members were and remain committed anti-racists deeply opposed to antisemitism.’ LabourList say, “sources on the left of the party have privately expressed optimism about the possibility that disciplinary action against Corbyn will be dropped, either via a Labour national executive committee (NEC) panel or beforehand. LabourList understands that longstanding Corbyn allies Jon Trickett MP and Unite’s Len McCluskey have been working behind the scenes to de-escalate the row and create a way back for the former leader.The Jewish Labour Movement has voiced frustration that Labour discussion after the EHRC report has been dominated by the row over Corbyn, ‘who could have avoided his inevitable suspension’, secretary Peter Mason said.” In comments undoubtedly emanating from the Zionist supporting right of the Labour Party there are loud groans of dissatisfaction, but in reality nothing Corbyn could possibly have said would have gone far enough for the hard-liners baying for blood. LabourList say, “Some members today have pointed out that the former Labour leader has not apologised, nor does his statement offer support to the report’s findings, instead welcoming Keir Starmer’s acceptance of the recommendations. The Labour Party is not commenting on the new statement posted by Corbyn. But according to one well-placed source, a Labour NEC panel may be convened as soon as this afternoon to consider Corbyn’s disciplinary case.” Unless Corbyn is completely exonerated by the NEC for commenting within the permissible norms as stated by the EHRC, their rulling will represent a gross miscarriage of justice and erasure of the truth.

    LabourList then printed the full text of Jeremy Corbyn’s statement on his suspension. Jeremy Corbyn wrote, “Last month, I was suspended from the Labour Party, after 54 years’ membership and four and a half years as party leader. On the day I was suspended I gave a broadcast interview to clarify what I had said in response to the EHRC report, and I also made a statement to the party to clear up any confusion about what I had meant, as follows:
    “The publication of the EHRC report should have been a moment for the Labour Party to come together in a determination to address the shortcomings of the past and work as one to root out antisemitism in our own ranks and wider society. We must never tolerate antisemitism or belittle concerns about it. And that was not my intention in anything I said this week. I regret the pain this issue has caused the Jewish community and would wish to do nothing that would exacerbate or prolong it. To be clear, concerns about antisemitism are neither ‘exaggerated’ nor ‘overstated’. The point I wished to make was that the vast majority of Labour Party members were and remain committed anti-racists deeply opposed to antisemitism. I fully support Keir Starmer’s decision to accept all the EHRC recommendations in full and, in accordance with my own lifelong convictions, will do what I can to help the Party move on, united against antisemitism which has been responsible for so many of history’s greatest crimes against humanity.” Corbyn added, “I’m grateful to the many thousands of Labour party members, trade unionists, and supporters in Britain and around the world, who have offered their solidarity. I hope this matter is resolved as quickly as possible, so that the party can work together to root out antisemitism and unite to oppose and defeat this deeply damaging Conservative government.”

    Does the Zionist Lobby and the BOD speak uniformly on behalf of all Jewish people in this country? You would certainly think so if you confined your absorption of the news to the BBC and the Mainstream Media, but every once in a while dissenting voices try, often in vein, penning petitioning letters in a desperate attempt to get their equally qualified opinions heard. In the Prole Star Article entitled, “Zionism, Israel & ‘Labour Antisemitism’ – The Unheard Jewish View,” written in mid October, David Hitchen set out to interview those whose opinions seem to be excluded from the debate. He writes, “Recently I travelled to London to The Union of Orthodox Hebrew Congregations. I had with me a list of rabbis I was trying to contact who had signed a letter in the Islington Tribune in defence of Jeremy Corbyn. But as soon as I got there I was told ‘Sorry we can’t help you.’ However they gave me the telephone number of someone they said might be able to help. I phoned him but he put the phone down on me straight away.”

    This was not a great start, but Hitchen was persistent, he says, “Not wanting to have travelled to London and to have wasted £100 on a train ticket… I just started stopping orthodox Jews on the street in Stamford Hill. Some said they couldn’t help. But I got speaking to someone who took a look at the article I was carrying around with me and then started to phone someone. They were speaking in Yiddish so I couldn’t understand what was being said. But he put me on the phone and the person turned out to be a rabbi who told me he could help and to take his number. I phoned him and we arranged to meet. I met with the rabbi and another orthodox Jew. They told me the problem of antisemitism in The Labour Party has been fabricated by the media. I myself agreed as even though I have witnesses to antisemitism on the left there is no evidence that it’s any more prevalent than in general society. In fact it is less.”

    Hitchen recalls, “We spoke for a while and after denouncing the chief Rabbi stating that he doesn’t represent them, it wasn’t long until the topic of Zionism came up… I’ve met with plenty of people who oppose Zionism for political reasons. But I’ve never heard anyone so passionately antizionist as the Jews I met that day – for reasons central to the tenets of their Jewish faith itself. They called the state of Israel ‘evil’ ‘racist’ and even made a comparison with Hitler, stating that Hitler was once powerful in the early days and that Israel will fall in much the same way. They told me that the Holy Land was not to be taken by force, and that the formation of any Jewish state before the coming of the Messiah is strictly forbidden. It was interesting to hear opposition to Zionism from a religious perspective. They want the state of Israel to be completely abolished and they told me that it will soon come to an end because God won’t allow it.”

    Hitchen appeared to have discovered a group of what the Zionists disparagingly call, ‘the wrong kind of Jew’ sometimes referred to by the even more disgusting label of ‘self-hating Jews!’ However, he seemed genuinely quite surprised to discover that the core tenant of their objection to Zionism was their Jewish faith. He said, “What was interesting is that what they were saying is in breach of the IHRA definition of antisemitism. Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination. For example by claiming the existence of the state of Israel is a racist endeavour. Yet am I really supposed to believe these people are antisemites themselves? Or perhaps a definition of racism which is more concerned with Israel than it is with Jewish people isn’t fit for purpose? It seems the IHRA definition infringes upon the religious liberty of antizionist Jews who oppose Zionism specifically for religious reasons.”

    Hitchen said, “We agreed to meet again but next he is going to arrange for us to interview some more rabbis regarding the allegations of institutional antisemitism made against Labour. Before I was about to leave he gave me his card and it occurred to me who I had been speaking to. The Neturei Karta is a religious group of Haredi Jews, created in 1938 in British Mandate Palestine but now active globally, who are known for their fanatical antizionism. I’ve read about them protesting outside the Israeli Embassy in London and I’ve seen videos of them burning Israeli flags. One of their chants as I recall is ‘Judaism yes! Zionism no! The state of Israel has to go’.”

    In conclusion Hitchen reported that, “Zionists seem to think they have the right to speak on behalf of all Jews. They label anyone who dares to criticise Israel or questions its existence an antisemite. Yet not all Jews are Zionists and, many orthodox Jews oppose Zionism on religious grounds. But after yesterday it got me thinking… It seems that from the point of view of the Neturei Karta, when it comes to Zionism and Judaism, you can’t follow one without turning your back on the other. As the orthodox Rabbi told me. Are they two different things that really aren’t compatible at all?” He promised, “Further interviews to follow…” In another Prole Star Article entitled “The Labour ‘Unity’ Con – And The Tragic Results,” They elaborate on “Appeasement, apology and the tragic results;” it sums up the fatal trap that Corbyn and the progressive Labour Left keep falling into.

    The Prole Star report that, “The woeful strategy of appeasement and apology, supposedly in a quest for unity, with those on the right who were ruthlessly conducting a one sided civil war, against the left in the Labour party, was a central cause of the downfall of Jeremy Corbyn. The pitiful response of the left, apologising in response to every false allegation of antisemitism, was an embarrassment. Watching decent anti racist campaigners like Mark Wadsworth and Jackie Walker being thrown under a bus, (unity ???), was infuriating. Seeing the cowardly action of the NEC, unanimously adopting the full IHRA definition of antisemitism, was exasperating. These actions were the result of the failure to stand up to the bogus antisemitism smear campaign, and to call it out for what it was, and still is. As we have witnessed the consequences of this were an unmitigated disaster. Every step backwards by the left, led to the right taking two steps forward.”

    LabourList earlier printed an, “Open Letter To David Isaac, Chair of the EHRC, Regarding allegations. It said, I am writing to you in your capacity as Chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission. I am writing on my own behalf and do not represent any group or organisation. I understand that the EHRC is now investigating allegations of antisemitism within the Labour Party. I read that the EHRC will investigate among other things ‘whether unlawful acts have been committed by the Party or its employees or agents.’ That being so, may I hope that it bases its inquiry on the historical definition of antisemitism which is a hatred of all Jews and of the whole of Jewish religion and culture, a definition which does not concern itself with any one state and does not discriminate between the different denominations or branches of the Jewish people? I point this out because the allegations of antisemitism in the Labour Party are being made by certain of its members who wish to protect Israel from the criticisms which have followed on from its actions in Palestine.”

    He noted that, “These see fit to associate in the public mind the contemporary and specific criticisms of the modern state of Israel with the long tradition of antisemitism which I have described above. It was to ensure that this equation was regularised that the IHRA definition of antisemitism was formulated. I feel therefore it is vital that the EHRC ignores the IHRA definition of antisemitism in this context as being politically-motivated, permitting the suppression of criticism of Israel and diverting attention away from the genuine problems many Jews face as they have always faced regardless of their allegiance or lack of it to Israel. I am myself a Jew, and feel this strongly. All this being said, then may I also hope that the EHRC asks the following questions in the course of its investigation, questions inspired by the kinds of actions historically taken against Jews by those who oppose them simply because they are Jews, i.e. by genuine antisemites?” He then provided a list of important considerations as follows:

    1. “Have any Jews been required to identify themselves as Jews in their application to join the Party?
    2. Have any Jews been excluded from the Party on the sole grounds that they are Jewish?
    3. Have any Jews been required by the Party to carry or wear something which specifically identifies them as being Jewish?
    4. Have any Jews been denied access to meetings, committees or conferences on the sole grounds that they are Jews?
    5. Have any Jews been denied the right to stand as officers for, speak at, or in any other way contribute to meetings, committees or conferences, on the sole grounds they are Jews?
    6. Have any Jewish officers been denied promotion within the Labour Party on the sole grounds that they are Jewish?
    7. Have any Jews been denied membership of the NEC on the sole grounds that they are Jewish?
    8. Have any Jews been denied the right to stand as Parliamentary candidates on the sole grounds that they are Jewish?
    9. Have any Jews been denied the right to cabinet status on the sole grounds that they are Jewish?
    10. Have any Jews ever been denied the right to stand for the Party leadership on the sole grounds that they are Jewish?
    11. Is there any part of the Party’s constitution which includes Jews among those social classes of which the Labour Party is critical?
    12. Are there any rules in the Party’s rule-book which are specific to Jews, both regarding how they must or must not behave and what kinds of discriminatory actions should be taken against them?
    13. Have any representatives of the Party been permitted by the Party to speak or write against Jews in any public forum, or in so doing have claimed that they are speaking on the Party’s behalf?”

    He wrote, “I am strongly of the opinion that these questions must be asked and answered if the desire of the EHRC is genuinely one of establishing whether or not there is real antisemitism in the Party, as against anti-Zionism, which relates only to the state of Israel, does not reflect on the Jewish people as a whole, and is the accepted position of many Jews, including Jewish members of the Labour Party.” He signed off by saying, “Thank you for your consideration, Yours sincerely, Richard Snell.”

    The Skwawkbox are Posting “Breaking news on the Corbyn suspension case,” they say, “Corbyn readmitted to party, despite right-dominated NEC panel. Former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has been restored to the party ‘whip’ after his suspension was unanimously overturned in the last few minutes by a right-dominated panel of National Executive Committee members. Corbyn issued a statement on Facebook this morning, about his comments following the publication of the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) report, that appears to have been agreed with the party. It expresses ‘regret’ for pain caused to Jewish people by the issue of antisemitism but does not withdraw his comment or apologise.” There is a reprint of Corbyn’s statement that I personally already feel went way too far in acquiescing to Zionist demands that will ramp up further outrageous future demands.

    Despite his venomous animosity and the desire to totally crush the well respected and venerated former leader the Party rules prohibit Starmer from interfering to ‘put the boot in!’ The Skwawkbox report that, Corbyn had said that, “in accordance with my own lifelong convictions, will do what I can to help the Party move on, united against antisemitism which has been responsible for so many of history’s greatest crimes against humanity.” Skwawkbox reveal that. “The carefully-worded statement allows Corbyn’s successor Keir Starmer to save face while rowing back on his and general secretary David Evans’s decision to suspend Corbyn for making comments that the EHRC report said he had a legally-protected right to make. ‘However, the Board of Deputies has attacked the statement and demanded that Keir Starmer block any readmission – but the EHRC report, which Labour’s opponents welcomed, forbids any political interference in disciplinary processes or outcomes, regardless of the source’.”

    Starmer cannot intervene to reverse or amend the NEC decision, but as he fails to do their bidding the Jewish Lobby and the BOD will cry foul. The Skwawkbox report on a Tweet, “Hi @BoardofDeputies – ‘the Jewish community’ is not a monolith, just as we weren’t a monolith when we rejected your advice to stay quietly at home in 1936 and instead confronted Mosley’s fascists in the streets and smashed them. https://t.co/XEmSYw59GC — Barnaby Raine (@BarnabyRaine) November 17, 2020 “ That was “One Jewish Twitter user’s response to the BoD’s dismissal of Corbyn’s statement.” The Skwawkbox claim that, “Labour must now immediately reinstate all members suspended for expressing solidarity with Corbyn or condemning his suspension.” One can imagine they will choke on their humble pie… We must robustly fight back against the lies of fantisemitism and the gross injustice of the Covert 2019 Rigged Election; a full Investigation could expose the truth, end the corruption and rapidly oust the Tories. DO NOT MOVE ON!

    #62468 Reply
    Kim Sanders-Fisher

    In the Guardian Presentation of “Politics live with Andrew Sparrow,” as always the painfully obvious critical bias is well and truly ‘baked into’ the reporting. There must be a preordained script for all Guardian reporters to religiously adhere to on all occasions. When introducing a comment from the progressive Left of the Labour Party, it must be prefaced by a derogatory qualifier, such as ‘hard-left,’ ‘Corbynite’ or ‘Corbynista;’ just inferring support for the democratically elected, unjustifiably vilified former Labour Leader if woven into current fabricated slurs is often enough to discredit the opinion as factional troublemaking a seditious comment worthy of removing the Party whip as the witch-hunt against the Labour Left ramps-up. In stark contrast, rabidly hateful pro-Zionist alt-right individuals, seeking to destroy her Majesty’s Opposition on behalf of Apartheid Israel, are quoted with the deference of respected scholars! No wonder the general public are rapidly losing faith in the Mainstream Media as this has become universally prevalent.

    The Guardian and other news outlets assume we are all too stupid to see through this relentless propaganda bias, but ‘know thy enemy’ and read on. They wrote, “UK coronavirus live: Keir Starmer tells self-isolating Boris Johnson to make process affordable for others,” as the “Labour leader tells self-isolating PM that others cannot afford to do the same.” Then the news that, “Labour will not restore whip to Corbyn. Starmer denies Corbyn Labour whip despite end of suspension.” A Tweet from Richard Burgon is quoted after including the obligatory slur, “the Corbynite Labour MP and chair of the chair of the Socialist Campaign group in parliament.” Richard Burgon MP (@RichardBurgon) Tweeted: “Jeremy Corbyn has rightly been reinstated to the Labour Party. That decision must be respected & implemented across the Labour Party. Jeremy should immediately have the whip restored. At a time of national crisis, division in the Labour party serves nobody but the Tory Gov’t.” Burgen will be rising to the top of Starmer’s hit list!

    Sparrow reports that, “At his post-PMQs briefing Sir Keir Starmer’s spokesman said that the decision to speed up Jeremy Corbyn’s disciplinary case was taken by party HQ.” Of course, another thoroughly unconvincing “not me Gov” denial of responsibility for his vindictive actions aimed at totally discrediting his inspirational predecessor. The Captain of Capitulation is far too cowardly to admit the disgraceful truth that is so insecure in his Leadership role that he relies on ranting about the ‘fantisemitism crisis’ his only goal in propping up his “New Management!” fiasco. Sparrow noted that, “The spokesman also refused to say what Corbyn would need to do to regain the party whip. ‘I’m not going to pre-empt any of that,’ the spokesman said, when asked if a clear retraction and an apology would be sufficient. The spokesman also said Starmer and Corbyn have not spoken since the night before the publication of the EHRC report last month. This morning Corbyn was told he was not having the whip restored by Nick Brown, the chief whip.”

    As if linking him to a common criminal Sparrow describer “Ian Lavery,” as “a close ally of Jeremy Corbyn’s and chair of the Labour party under his leadership,” before reporting that he, “told the World at One that Sir Keir Starmer should have accepted the decision of a national executive committee panel to reinstate Corbyn as a party member. He said: If you’ve got committees in place – and these committees are individuals elected by the membership – if you’ve got committees to deal with disciplinary, they come out unanimously with something how on earth is it correct that anybody in the party can overrule that? But Lavery ruled out resigning the whip himself out of support for Corbyn. He went on: What we want to do is exactly what Keir wants, exactly what Jeremy is saying: we want to root out antisemitism from the Labour party, undoubtedly so, and by prolonging this issue, by what the leader has done this morning, doesn’t really help because it just continues the pain in every constituency.” Lavery still hopes to salvage the broken Labour Party!

    In what the Guardian might laughable consider ‘balance’ Sparrow then quotes the Tweet of arch Zionist “Stephen Pollard, editor of the Jewish Chronicle,” who he says, “is not impressed by Sir Keir Starmer’s announcement about Jeremy Corbyn. Stephen Pollard (@stephenpollard)” who Tweeted: “Afraid I won’t be jumping for joy over Starmer withdrawing the whip. Apart from anything else, that weasel phrase ‘I will keep this situation under review’ is typical. How might the situation change? Will Corbyn be able to travel back in time and act differently?” For Pollard, who hypocritically claims to champion free speech as I highlighted in a previous post, anything less than resounding public support for the Apartheid policies of the Israeli Government constitutes antisemitism and a SLAPP suit will be on the way. The fact that the Jewish Chronicle have been found guilty of promoting hateful propaganda and fake news they have been forced to retract does no reduce Pollards venerated status in the eyes of the biased right-wing Media.

    Despite the venom and controversy surrounding his reinstatement Corbyn maintains his dignity and focus. Sparrow quotes input from the vindicated, correctly reinstated man who should now be able to resume his important role as a Labour MP without the toxic intervention of the Zionist Lobby. Sometimes I think MPs forget that this is not Israel and the Israelis have no right to interfere in our politics. Labour members need to strongly resist the dictates of this dangerous pressure group. Sparrow says, “Jeremy Corbyn has been tweeting – but not about his relationship with the PLP. He has just posted this. Jeremy Corbyn (@jeremycorbyn) Over eight months into this pandemic and statutory sick pay in the UK is still just £95.85 per week – and 2 million don’t earn enough to qualify. How can people be expected to self-isolate on that? We need #SickPayForAll that meets the cost of living. #Covid19UK.” Selfless as always Jeremy is focused on the real needs of ordinary people while Keir Starmer is still failing to achieve relevance.

    Sparrow insists on reminding us that, “Andrew Scattergood,” is “co-chair of the pro-Corbyn Labour group Momentum,” as if anything and everything pro-Corbyn should be viewed with suspicion as corrupt. Making sure to include the Labour Leader’s title Sparrow quotes Scattergood describing, “Sir Keir Starmer’s decision not to admit Jeremy Corbyn to the PLP as ‘farcical’.” Sparrow reports that, “In a statement he said, ‘A disciplinary panel found that Jeremy Corbyn had not broken any rule, so now Keir Starmer is making it up as he goes along. This is not only farcical and incompetent, it is a blatant political attack on the left at a time when Labour should be united in taking on the Tories. The recent national executive committee election results show that there is a clear socialist majority amongst the membership. Together we will fight for a socialist Labour party, committed to getting rid of our broken system and transforming Britain in the interests of the many. They can’t remove the whip from our movement’.”

    In other news, the Guardian reveals, “Nissan boss says without UK-EU trade deal its Sunderland business will not be sustainable.” Are the turkeys still looking forward to Christmas? This was inevitable. They say, “Nissan has warned that its future in Sunderland will ‘not be sustainable’ if there is no Brexit deal. With fewer than 10 days to strike a trade deal, Nissan’s chief operating officer, Ashwani Gupta, told Reuters that the prospects of tariffs on cars it exports to the continent would be ruinous to its plant, which employs 7,000 people. He said: If it happens without any sustainable business case, obviously it is not a question of Sunderland or not Sunderland, obviously our UK business will not be sustainable, that’s it. He denied reports it was seeking compensation for the financial cost of a no deal. ‘We are absolutely not thinking that and we are not discussing it,’ he said.” It seems that it’s not just the Tory rats leaving the sinking Brexit ship of doom, but the PM could locate a few new weapons factories up north – the UK’s top export to foreign despots!

    In a Labour Heartlands Article entitled, “Labour reinstating Jeremy Corbyn after 19 days showing it’s just playing politics with anti-Semitism after all,” Paul Knaggs dissects the machinations and gross injustice that portent a “Labour Party in civil war.” Knaggs writes, “We welcome Jeremy Corbyn’s reinstatement to the Labour Party, however, the fast track hearing for the former Leader has shown how much the Labour Party is playing politics with Anti-Semitism. Nineteen days ago Jeremy Corbyn was suspended from the Labour Party hours after the report by the Equalities and Human Rights Commission into Labour Party Anti-Semitism. In response, Jeremy Corbyn claimed ‘the scale of the problem’ was ‘dramatically overstated for political reasons by our opponents inside and outside the party, as well as by much of the media’,” (a fundamentally true statement.) He says, “within hours, he was suspended pending an investigation, a decision his successor Sir Keir Starmer claimed he had no involvement in but supported.”

    Knaggs asserts that, “It is clear that the decision to suspend Jeremy Corbyn was wrong, what is even more clear is the fact that the Labour Party and Sir Keir Starmer could not maintain this war of attrition and the haemorrhaging of Labour members resulting from the suspension. The overwhelming support by the membership for its former leader was unprecedented. What is also clear is that Sir Keir Starmer does not have a clue what he is doing. It was both politically stupid to suspend Jeremy Corbyn but even more stupid was to then make adversary comments upon his pending reinstatement.” However Knaggs then raises a little mentioned injustice within the Labour Party disciplinary process saying, “what is most unjust is the fact that there are thousands of members still waiting and have been for months if not years to have their cases heard by the NEC.” He says, “It seems within the Labour Party the common people don’t matter, to them its just politics.”

    Highlighting unequal treatment Knaggs justifiably claims that, “JC’s reinstatement is political, if not why are other members pushed back in the queue waiting for a fair hearing? There are literately thousands of Labour members suspended from the Party at this moment in time, many have been suspended over a year. Where we are sure many members are deserving of their suspensions many members are not and many more have been victims of right-wing Labour staffers shown in the #LabourLeaks dossier, Staffers working within the Labour Party’s Governance and Legal Unit who bragged of carrying out a Stasi type cull of Left-wing Labour members. These members have been living in a form of purgatory unable to hold any Labour Party position, vote or attend meetings. Members are even banned from discussing their suspensions especially online. Those targeted with suspension from the Labour Party were essentially ‘gagged’ and unable to defend themselves.”

    Meanwhile Knaggs highlights the injustice of trial by Media, saying that, “With many suspensions unduly reported in national and international newspapers along with online media outlets where they have been treated unfairly without due process or the customary innocent until proven guilty, this has meant they have had to endure social media attacks from people ignorant to the facts yet willing to cast aspersions, knowing the suspended members are tied in their response to accusations of racism or being an antisemite. The fact that Jeremy Corbyn did not deserve to be suspended is neither here nor there, it is about due process fair hearings, equality and justice that thousands of other members have been denied. If these members are guilty of Anti-Semitism then they should be removed from the Party but to leave them without any form of recourse to plead their case for what has been for some, years in waiting, then this is justice denied, guilty or not.”

    According to Knaggs, “It is not even fair to say that Jeremy Corbyn’s position has an MP was a fair and understandable reason to fast track his hearing, other high profile MP’s and political personalities have had to wait month’s or years to have their cases heard just like the common members. In February 2019, Chris Williamson was notified of a formal investigation and later suspended from the Labour Party for his comments about the party’s response to criticism over its handling of allegations of antisemitism within the party. After an investigation, Williamson was reinstated in June 2019 with a formal warning but was resuspended two days later when the party decided to review the disciplinary decision. In October 2019, Williamson won a High Court challenge to the legality of the review of the disciplinary decision but similar charges had been made on 3 September 2019, involving a further suspension, and the High Court ruled the Labour Party’s disciplinary procedure with regard to these charges should run its course.”

    Knaggs elaborates on Williamson’s long drawn out case and the destructive political consequences saying that, “The judgement was reserved until October. Chris Williamson was then issued with the third suspension six days prior to the hearing, just 36 hours after the third preliminary hearing about the court date. Labour bureaucrats were trying to get it delayed, but the judge decided after their third attempt, didn’t just throw out their objections, he actually named a date. So the bureaucrats panicked as they knew their case was very weak and so issued a further suspension. In November that year, Labour’s National Executive Committee blocked Williamson from standing as a Labour candidate in the 2019 United Kingdom general election.” This was a purely political decision to sabotage a well liked progressive Left Labour candidate whose seat fell to a Tory. Knaggs also reminds us that, “The case of both Jackie Walker and Ken Livingston was just as long and again with more twist and turns than a Tarantino plot.”

    Knaggs points out that, “Sadly thousands of members have been suspended over the last nineteen days for showing their support for Jeremy Corbyn or in many cases have simply left the party. They will find themselves forgotten victims waiting for months if not years in the vain hope of a fair hearing. If there was any justice in this world and we know there is not, that’s why we fight, Labour must now immediately reinstate all members suspended for expressing solidarity with Corbyn or condemning his suspension. This is not over by a long stroke and the rabbit hole the Labour Party are so submerged in will never see an end.” Knaggs warns that, “It is clearly Civil War,” and he highlights, “Sir Keir Starmer’s lack of diplomacy and experience.” Knaggs wrote that, “It is yet to be officially announced that Jeremy Corbyn will have the whip restored.” Not technically correct as it’s automatic, but Knaggs says, “it has been reported a group of MPs have threatened to resign if Jeremy Corbyn is readmitted to the parliamentary Labour party.”

    Knaggs elaborates on why he thinks, “Starmer’s short five years as a Labour Party MP is telling in his response to Jeremy Corbyn’s reinstatement. Instead of trying to build bridges he is painting himself, and subsequently the Labour Party, into a tight corner. Sir Keir Starmer tweeted this evening that today’s decision marked ‘another painful day for the Jewish community and those Labour members who have fought so hard to tackle antisemitism’. He added: ‘I will not allow a focus on one individual to prevent us from doing the vital work of tackling antisemitism. When I stood as leader of the Labour Party, I was clear that my first priority would be to root out antisemitism. It still is.’ I know that this has been another painful day for the Jewish community and those Labour members who have fought so hard to tackle antisemitism. I know the hurt that has been caused and the trauma people have felt. Sir Keir Starmer’s comments came after Jeremy Corbyn called on Labour to ‘come together’.”

    Knaggs quotes Jeremy Corbyn’s Tweet: “I am pleased to have been reinstated in the Labour Party and would like to thank party members, trade unionists and all who have offered solidarity,’ the Islington North MP wrote on Twitter. ‘Our movement must now come together to oppose and defeat this deeply damaging Conservative government’.” In relaying the negative comments Knaggs notes that, “It is very telling these MPs are the same MPs that cried loudest at Chris Williamson’s suspension being lifted…” They are quick to claim that the system doesn’t work whenever it fails to target and remove their enemies! Not mentioned here is the fact that many of these MPs were deeply unpopular despite their status as Labour MPs and some were themselves in the process of being investigated, leaving before they were found guilty to smear from beyond the disciplinary reach of the Labour Party.

    Knaggs reports that, “Labour MP Dame Margaret Hodge, tweeted: “This is a broken outcome from a broken system. A factional, opaque and dysfunctional complaints process could never reach a fair conclusion. This is exactly why the EHRC instructed Labour to setup an independent process! ‘I simply cannot comprehend why it is acceptable for Corbyn to be a Labour MP if he thinks antisemitism is exaggerated and a political attack, refuses to apologise, never takes responsibility for his actions & rejects the findings of the EHRC report. Ridiculous’.” Of the hundreds of complaints of online abuse that Hodge insisted demonstrated a massive problem with antisemitism in the Labour Party, most could not be promptly removed from the Party because they were never members in the first place! Hodge has never revealed or acknowledged that fact in her disgusting continued aggression targeting Corbyn.

    Hate monger Gideon Falter ranted on behalf of his rabid element of the powerful Zionist Lobby, “Chief executive of the Campaign Against Antisemitism said Mr Corbyn’s ‘shambolic suspension and readmission’ was ‘nothing more than a media stunt to blunt the blow of the EHRC’s report. ‘By readmitting Mr Corbyn, the Labour Party has once again excused anti-Semitism and proved itself unwilling to address it,’ he said. ‘Mr Corbyn’s suspension should have remained in place until all of our complaints against him were investigated, but no investigation has been undertaken. ‘Once again, we see the impact of Labour’s failure to implement an independent disciplinary process as demanded by the EHRC and Sir Keir Starmer’s leadership pledges that have now gone unfulfilled for almost a year. ‘The Jewish community has been conned. Mr Corbyn must be resuspended immediately pending investigation of our complaint against him under the new independent process mandated by the EHRC. Britain is watching’.”

    Jewish Voice for Labour state that: “We welcome the news that Jeremy Corbyn’ suspension has been lifted by the NEC three weeks after it was unjustifiably imposed by the General Secretary David Evans. We strongly urge the Party to apologise to Jeremy Corbyn for the highhanded and public nature of his suspension and the consequent distress he has inevitably suffered as a result of media intrusion and the ongoing attacks that have continued following his reinstatement. We reiterate the call we made earlier for the party to lift the suspensions and investigations into all those who have supported Jeremy and expressed solidarity with him. This would demonstrate that the NEC decision will pave the way to the development of the party unity to which Keir Starmer insists he is committed – and on which platform he was elected by the membership. The people of this country and the world desperately need this to provide a coherent and united opposition to Boris Johnson’s callous and inept government.”

    Knaggs points to the inevitable consequence saying, “It is quite clear the war will go on and Sir Keir Starmer looks set for a political hiding that will end with a Labour Party split.” Knaggs reports that “Labour Heartlands fully support Jewish voice for Labour in their statement,” quoted above and also in their article. I am not a citizen of Israel and I have no right to influence their elections, but no foreign power should have the right to interfere in the running of British political parties as the Zionist Lobby clearly does. We must strip the nakedly aggressive Zionist propaganda out of UK politics: Labour isn’t nude without Likude! The Zionist Lobby warped our politics and helped deprive the British people of a truly progressive Socialist Government led by Jeremy Corbyn, but they are not done vilifying him and all he stood for. This was just one of the major reasons the Covert 2019 Rigged Election was shockingly corrupt; the flawed result should still be challenged and fully Investigated. We need strong robust opposition to Get The Tories Out! DO NOT MOVE ON!

    #62504 Reply
    Kim Sanders-Fisher

    The fantisemitism storm in a teacup, more like typhoon in a teaspoon is being dredged through the news day after day distracting from far more important issues like the relentless Tory squandering of public money on dodgy contracts. Sir Keir is so fixated on building up his pathetic reputation by vindictively targeting his predecessor that he has totally abandoned his number one job of providing robust opposition. The Tories must have chucked him a massive bribe to secure his loyalty as a devastating Trojan horse on a mission to break up the Labour Party, but he is taking a huge risk. How will all these lying bastards react when the truth comes out and the entire British public discover that there never was a major anti-Semitism crisis in the Labour Party and we have all been duped in order to keep a progressive Socialist Government out of office? Copious volumes of real statistics are there, the leaked Labour report is supportive and the fantisemitism smears will not hold up in Court: Jeremy Corbyn must take this to Court.

    The Canary Article entitled, “A newly-independent MP stole the PMQs limelight from Keir Starmer,” They said that, “Neither Boris Johnson nor Keir Starmer took centre stage during Prime Minister’s Questions (PMQs) on Wednesday 18 November. Because a newly-independent MP unintentionally took the limelight.” They focus on Starmer, saying that, “the backlash intensifies. Talk about a misstep by Starmer. Because he decided to come out and say that he wasn’t giving Jeremy Corbyn the whip back right before PMQs. This came after Corbyn was first suspended, and then reinstated, by the party machinery over comments he made about the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC)’s investigation into alleged antisemitism in the Labour Party.’ This completely sucked the oxygen out of far more important debate issues like the scandal of Tory corruption in tossing public money around like confetti, but with zero accountability somehow always benefiting their Tory supporters in the ‘Chumocracy’!”

    The Canary say that, “Firstly, Starmer not giving Corbyn the whip back prompted a furious backlash from the latter’s supporters on social media. Former shadow chancellor John McDonnell was not happy: This is just plain wrong & will cause more division & disunity in party. Jeremy’s gone through the formal procedures & decision has been made properly. I appeal to everyone that surely it’s time to move on & start working together to implement the EHRC. Labour MP: Starmer has ‘done the right thing’ over Corbyn— John McDonnell MP (@johnmcdonnellMP) November 18, 2020 Andrew Feinstein called the situation “farcical”: This is the most farcical thing I’ve ever seen. He bends in the wind worse than a wind sock. Starmer is making Theresa May seem charismatic & a strategic genius. Corbyn should just sue the incompetent fool & form a new party! https://t.co/7CeNpk6I1u — Andrew Feinstein (@andrewfeinstein)”

    The Canary report that, “Momentum has launched a petition: Keir Starmer’s decision to remove the whip from #JeremyCorbyn is a joke. A disciplinary panel found that Corbyn broke no rules – so now Starmer is making it up as he goes along. Sign our petition to restore the whip! https://t.co/ok85fsdGkf pic.twitter.com/RLZSnObVlw — Momentum (@PeoplesMomentum).” The Canary‘s editor-at-large Kerry-Anne Mendoza made an important point: Who could’ve seen this coming? *checks notes… Every left-wing commentator worth their salt. https://t.co/ojdBdNi57B — Kerry-Anne Mendoza (@TheMendozaWoman)”

    But they say, “it was Rachael Swindon who hit the nail on the head best: Keir Starmer wrong in 5 ways.
    • Agreed with Corbyn’s view of scale in 2019 Marr
    • Breached P.27 of EHRC right to free speech
    • Misquoted Jeremy’s reply to EHRC report
    • Politically interfered in process breaching EHRC
    • Breached EHRC rule not to have opaque arbitrary discipline
    — Rachael Swindon (@Rachael_Swindon)”

    It sure sounds like they are just, “Making it up as he goes along?” The Canary highlight that, “Secondly, there are procedural problems that Starmer may have caused. Momentum founder Jon Lansman pointed out on Twitter that: The decision not to restore the whip to Corbyn just announced has driven a coach and horses through the party’s disciplinary process, making it subservient to the parliamentary party and embedding ‘political interference’. The whip was only removed because he had been suspended! In other words, the NEC found that Corbyn had not breached party rules. So, Starmer technically may not have a right not to restore the whip to him. Or if he does, it raises serious questions about how the leader can override official party procedure.” Of course you won’t hear that on Newsnight!

    The Canary say that this is, “Sowing seeds of division. Thirdly, many people are pointing out that this will create further division in the Labour Party. Red Labour tweeted that (edited for ease of reading): Starmer’s decision not to restore the whip to Corbyn is vengeful, divisive and provocative. It is designed to put a wedge between socialists in the party and the PLP [Parliamentary Labour Party] and pick us off, one by one. Well, we have one message for Sir Keir: you have a fight on your hands. Moreover, Starmer’s decision to announce he would not give the whip back to Corbyn raises serious questions about his leadership. Opportunism or appalling leadership? Media-wise, it reeks of opportunism and intentional bad timing. Starmer must have known that his decision would dominate social media across the entire day. He also must have known it would make the headlines.”

    Elaborating on the issue of multiple missed opportunities, the Canary say, “The Tory government has been repeatedly exposed as utterly (and maybe intentionally) negligent over the coronavirus (Covid-19) pandemic. So, you’d think the Labour Party would want that as its focus. But instead, Starmer has allowed a subservient Tory media to make the headlines about Corbyn. Why would he do this? It could be appalling leadership. But Starmer surely isn’t that useless. Maybe it’s because, as Robert Peston pointed out, Starmer is trying to embed his vision of the party: Starmer is defining his leadership of Labour. It is his version of Tony Blair’s determination to abolish Clause lV, Robert Peston (@Peston). Yet in reality, all Starmer has done is to further split the party into its various factions; alienate supporters, and give the media a feeding-frenzy. Meanwhile, the Tory government is presiding over the gradual breakdown of UK society. Starmer’s priorities, and leadership, are wrong in so many ways.”

    In the Guardian Article entitled, “Keir Starmer denies Jeremy Corbyn Labour whip despite end of suspension,” they explain why the “Decision means former leader will not sit as Labour MP and is likely to reignite party row.” They say, “Keir Starmer has sparked a furious backlash from Labour leftwingers by refusing to readmit Jeremy Corbyn as a Labour MP, arguing that his predecessor has undermined efforts to restore the party’s reputation in the Jewish community. A disciplinary panel of the party’s national executive committee (NEC) lifted the suspension of Corbyn’s party membership on Tuesday after he issued a conciliatory statement ‘clarifying’ controversial remarks he made when the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) published a damning report on Labour antisemitism.”

    The Guardian report that, “In a strongly worded statement on Wednesday, Starmer said he would not be welcoming Corbyn back into the parliamentary Labour party (PLP). ‘Jeremy Corbyn’s actions in response to the EHRC report undermined and set back our work in restoring trust and confidence in the Labour party’s ability to tackle antisemitism,’ Starmer said. ‘In those circumstances, I have taken the decision not to restore the whip to Jeremy Corbyn. I will keep this situation under review’.”

    The Guardian say that, “The decision sparked an angry response from Corbyn’s backers in the PLP, including Diane Abbott, John McDonnell and Richard Burgon, who accused Starmer of jeopardising party unity. Andrew Scattergood, the co-chair of the grassroots campaign group Momentum, accused the party leader of ‘making it up as he goes along. This is not only farcical and incompetent, it is a blatant political attack on the left at a time when Labour should be united in taking on the Tories,’ he said. Scattergood added that leftwing members would continue to ‘fight for a socialist Labour party’, adding ‘they can’t remove the whip from our movement’. Starmer appeared to be referring to Corbyn’s statement following the publication of the EHRC report on 29 October, in which he said the problem of antisemitism in Labour had been ‘dramatically overstated for political reasons by our opponents inside and outside the party, as well as by much of the media’.”

    The Guardian note that, “In a ‘clarification’ submitted to the NEC and made public this week, Corbyn said claims of antisemitism had not been ‘exaggerated’.” I don’t believe that’s really true, but they say, “That appeared to satisfy the NEC disciplinary panel, which party insiders said had decided unanimously to end the suspension of Corbyn’s Labour membership. However, it evidently did not satisfy Starmer, who repeatedly pledged during his leadership campaign to tackle the issue of antisemitism forcefully. A Labour spokesman said Corbyn was informed of the decision by the chief whip by phone on Wednesday morning. He repeatedly insisted the decision to readmit Corbyn as a party member had been made by Labour HQ, not Starmer’s office. Pressed on how long the suspension could last, the spokesman refused to be drawn, repeatedly saying he would not ‘give a running commentary’.”

    The Guardian warned that, “Corbyn’s supporters had insisted party rules meant he should be automatically readmitted to the PLP once the NEC decision was made, and the decision reignited the simmering civil war between Starmer and Labour leftwingers. Jon Lansman, the founder of Momentum and a close ally of Corbyn, said Starmer’s decision not to readmit Corbyn was obvious political interference. ‘Antisemitism and the threats of legal action which can follow from charging people with it forces us to abandon the make it up as you go along approach of catch-all rules about ‘bringing the party into disrepute’, he said. “Political interference has to end. An independent process will ensure that. The EHRC recommendations, all of which Keir has undertaken to implement in full, will ensure that. Refusing to restore the whip to Jeremy is just another example of political interference, a kick against inevitable change to a rule-based approach.”

    According to the Guardian, “The Labour’s spokesman said they did not accept that, adding: ‘The decision about membership is taken by the party; the decision about the whip is taken by the leader of the party.’ Starmer appeared to repudiate the NEC’s decision, which was made under disciplinary rules being reviewed as part of the response to the EHRC report. He said: ‘The disciplinary process does not have the confidence of the Jewish community. That became clear once again yesterday.’ In effect Starmer is admitting that it is imperative for him to once again submit to the dictates of the Zionist Lobby acting on behalf of a foreign power, namely the Apartheid State of Israel, to the detriment of Labour Party members and the good of the country! Wilfully ignorant of the massive damage he is doing to Party unity, he arrogantly said, ‘It is the task of my leadership to fix what I have inherited. That is what I am resolute in doing and I have asked for an independent process to be established as soon as possible’.”

    The Guardian say that, “Friends of Corbyn said Starmer’s actions could have left the party open to legal challenge because the EHRC stressed the importance of disciplinary decisions being independent from political interference. ‘Keir is a lawyer. Does he not realise what he is doing? It goes completely against the EHRC report,’ one said. Leftwing Labour MPs also rallied behind Corbyn, with the former shadow chancellor John McDonnell calling it ‘just plain wrong’ and saying it would ’cause more division and disunity’. Marie van der Zyl, the president of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, welcomed Starmer’s decision and criticised the process that led to Corbyn’s readmission to party membership. Labour’s disciplinary process is clearly still not fit for purpose. Keir Starmer has now taken the appropriate leadership decision not to restore the whip to Jeremy Corbyn,’ she said. ‘We continue to say that ‘zero tolerance’ must mean precisely that, whether for antisemites or their apologists.”

    The Guardian report that, “The Labour MP Neil Coyle, who has been an outspoken critic of Corbyn’s approach to antisemitism under his leadership, said the case must be looked at by the independent process that Starmer said he would set up under the EHRC recommendations. ‘Keir is trying to deliver on his self-confessed first priority as Labour leader – to rebuild trust with the Jewish community,’ he said. ‘The whip cannot be restored until the new, genuinely independent complaints process assesses this case and ensures a fair decision is made. This is also the legal requirement under the EHRC report; the Labour party has to do this in order to avoid further inquiry. So it is the morally right thing to do as well as the only option available’.” I am sure the Media outlets will be able to dredge up plenty of disgusting Corbyn haters in the coming weeks to discredit the progressive Left of the Party, but people saw what was possible under Corbyn and it will not be easy to get that genie back in the bottle.

    Starmer has badly miscalculated here, in being swayed by the Zionist Lobby to totally abuse the system that EHRC has only just ruled that the Labour Leader should not get involved in the disciplinary process: he obviously has in the case of Jeremy Corbyn. We hope that Corbyn will consult Lawyers and fight-back to expose Starmer’s arrogance, hypocrisy and corruption. We need this Tory Trojan Horse out of the Labour Party before he is able to totally destroy the main opposition party at a time when we have the most corrupt Tory Government in my lifetime. Challenging the result of the Covert 2019 Rigged Election and demanding a full Investigation would potentially have removed this abysmal Tory Government from power and seen Corbyn’s victory recognized with him restored to the Leadership role. I am sure that a huge number of Labour Party members want Corbyn back leading the party rather that the egotistical Captain of Capitulation with his incessant fantisemitism navel gazing; we need genuine Opposition! DO NOT MOVE ON!

    #62525 Reply
    Kim Sanders-Fisher

    Boris Johnson, unable to enter the Chamber due to self-isolation, was confined to a monitor screen with the Speaker in control of a really handy mute button! This was the first ever Prime Minister’s Questions with the PM on zoom; Lindsey Hoyle had never used that mute button before, but with the PM, it was going to be Oh soo… tempting! Johnson couldn’t grandstand in his usual obnoxious way, but he could still fail to answer the questions, just brag and spew lies. He began, “Mr Speaker I know that you have been updated by my officials on Privy Council terms on the leak investigation that you also referred to in the House on 2 November. As you know, Mr Speaker, I take this matter extremely seriously and I commit to returning to update the House in due course. This morning, I had virtual meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my virtual duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings later today.” If the PM really has been exposed for a second time surly it demonstrates how very poorly he is abiding by the “hand, face, space” rules!

    Labour MP Anna McMorrin asked, “This pandemic has shown how interconnected we are and how vulnerable we are to global challenges. When we are still grappling with covid, the climate emergency and growing hunger, why are this Government reported to be breaking their own manifesto commitment and cutting the aid budget, which saves lives and builds resilience? Will the Prime Minister stop this retreat from the global stage and take this opportunity to rule that out, here and now?” Typically evasive the PM said, “I can tell the hon. Lady that everybody in this country can be immensely proud of the massive commitments that this country has made, and will continue to make, to tackling poverty and deprivation around the world. I think they can be even prouder of the commitment that we are now making, leading the world to tackle the threat of climate change. The investment we are making, whether through official development assistance or other means, in tackling that problem is second to none across the world. It is the UK that is leading the world in tackling one of the greatest problems that this planet faces.” So, answer came there none!

    Keir Starmer said, “May I start by sending my best wishes to the Prime Minister and all those across the country who are doing the right thing by following the rules and self-isolating? Devolution in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland is one of the proudest achievements of the last Labour Government. Until now, whatever our disagreements, there has been a very broad consensus about devolution, so why did the Prime Minister tell his MPs this week that Scottish devolution is, in his words, ‘a disaster’?” The PM replied, “I think what has unquestionably been a disaster is the way in which the Scottish nationalist party has taken and used devolution as a means not to improve the lives of its constituents, not to address their health concerns or to improve education in Scotland, but, I know this point of view is shared by the right hon. and learned Gentleman—constantly to campaign for the break-up of our country and to turn devolution, otherwise a sound policy from which I myself personally benefited when I was running London, into a mission to break up the UK.”

    “That, in my view, would be a disaster.” Johnson emphasized before turning the question on Starmer, “If he does not think that would be a disaster, perhaps he could say so now.” The Speaker intervened, and I thought he was going to remind the PM that PMQs was an opportunity for him to answer questions not ask them, which he frequently forgets. Instead he clarified, “Can I just say that it is the Scottish National party, not the nationalist party; otherwise, the phones will be ringing long and hard.” The PM said, “Mr Speaker, I am so sorry. They are national but not nationalist; I see. Right.” Johnson was trying to Take a petty dig at the SNP.

    The Speaker replied, “We can play pedantics another time.” Then Starmer really nailed it, “The single biggest threat to the future of the United Kingdom is the Prime Minister, every time he opens his mouth almost. When the Prime Minister said he wanted to take back control, nobody thought he meant from the Scottish people, but his quote is very clear. He said ‘devolution has been a disaster north of the border’. This is not an isolated incident. Whether it is the internal market Bill or the way the Prime Minister has sidelined the devolved Parliaments over the covid response, he is seriously undermining the fabric of the United Kingdom. Instead of talking down devolution does he agree that we need far greater devolution of powers and resources across the United Kingdom?”

    Did he have to dredge up Blair, that shameless war criminal? The PM said, “Tony Blair himself, the former Labour leader, has conceded that he did not foresee the rise of a separatist party in Scotland and that he did not foresee the collapse of Scottish Labour. I think the right hon. and learned Gentleman is quite right: there can be great advantages in devolution, and I was very proud, when I was running a devolved administration in London, to do things in which I passionately believed, such as improving public transport, fighting crime and improving housing for my constituents, and we had a great deal of success. What disappoints me is that the Scottish National party, by your ruling on its correct name, Mr Speaker is not engaging in that basic work. Instead, it is campaigning to break up the Union, an objective that I hope the Leader of the Opposition will repudiate. Will he say so now, that he opposes the break-up of the United Kingdom?” The Speaker intervened to snap back with a correction, “It is not a ruling; it is a matter of fact.”

    Again Starmer allowed himself to be put on the spot by answering the PM’s question, “Of course I do not want the break-up of the United Kingdom, but if anything is fuelling that break-up, it is the Prime Minister. Turning now to the Prime Minister’s handling of the pandemic, the Prime Minister is doing the right thing by self-isolating after being notified by track and trace, but does he think he would have been able to do so if, like so many other people across the country, all he had to rely on for the next 14 days was either statutory sick pay, which is £95 a week, that is £13 a day, or a one-off payment of £500, which works out at £35 a day?” The PM would twist this into a pretzel by leaping to the obscure conclusion that Starmer’s criticism of the pittance paid to those expected to self-isolate was instead a glowing compliment regarding the Tories dysfunctional Track and Trace system! It was bizarre.

    The PM actually said, “It is good finally to hear something from the right hon. and learned Gentleman in praise of NHS Test and Trace. I think it has secured at least one of his objectives, which is to keep me away from answering his questions in person. I believe that the package that we have in place to protect people and support people throughout this crisis has been outstanding and exceptional. The UK has puts its arms, as I have said many times, around the people of this country, a £200 billion package of support; increasing the living wage by record amounts; uplifting universal credit; many, many loans and grants to businesses of all kinds, and £500 of support for people who are self-isolating in addition to all the other benefits and support that we give. I think it is a reasonable package. I know it is tough for people who have to self-isolate, and I am glad that after a long time in which the right hon. and learned Gentleman simply attacked NHS Test and Trace, he seems now to be coming round and supporting it.” Oh no, the Tory hug of death!

    The laughable assumption did not even dignify a response but Starmer snapped, “I am not going to take lectures on support, the lockdown measures were passed the other week with Labour votes. Thirty-two of the Prime Minister’s own MPs broke a three-line Whip, and I hear that about 50 of them have joined a WhatsApp group to work out how they are going to oppose him next time around. He should be thanking us for our support, not criticising.” It was insulting to endure the PMs constant craving for support and compliments; Starmer encourages this with zero opposition and consistent backing of Tory Government policy. As the Prime Minister well knows, so far as the £500 scheme is concerned, only one in eight workers qualify for that scheme. The Prime Minister always does this: he talks about the number of people he is helping but ignores the huge numbers falling through the gap.”

    All Starmer was eliciting from the PM was another round of bragging, but he said, “Members here may be able to afford to self-isolate, but that is not the case for many people across the country who send us here. It is estimated that only about 11% of people self-isolate when they are asked to do so, 11%. That is not because they do not want to; it is because many do not feel that they can afford to do so. For example, if someone is a self-employed plumber, a construction worker or a photographer and they do not qualify for social security benefits, or if they run a small business and cannot work from home, they are likely to see a significant cut to their income if they have to self-isolate. This is affecting many families across the country. Does the Prime Minister recognise that if we want to increase the number of people who isolate, we need to make it easier and affordable for people to do so?”

    Continuing the con, the PM replied, “Again, I think it is extraordinary that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is now coming out in favour of NHS Test and Trace when he has continuously attacked it. In fact, the numbers that he gives for the success rate of the NHS self-isolation programme are, according to my information, way too low. We continue to encourage people to do the right thing, it does break the chain of transmission of the disease. As for the self-employed groups that he mentions, we have given £13.5 billion so far in support for self-employed people and have uplifted universal credit in the way that I described. What we want to do is to get the virus under control, get the R down below 1, which is the purpose of these current measures, encourage people to self-isolate in the way that I am, and thereby stop the disease from spreading so that the firms, professions and businesses that the right hon. and learned Gentleman talks about can get back to something as close to normality as soon as possible. In the meantime, we are giving them every possible support.”

    Starmer stuck to his guns saying, “The Prime Minister must understand that there is a huge gap in the system, because if someone cannot afford to isolate, there is little point in their being tested or traced. While the Prime Minister and the Chancellor will not pay people enough to isolate properly, we learned this week that they can find £21 million of taxpayers’ money to pay a go-between to deliver lucrative contracts with the Department of Health and Social Care, £21 million. I remind the Prime Minister that a few weeks ago he could not find that amount of money for free school meals for kids over half-term. Does the Prime Minister think that £21 million to a middleman was an acceptable use of taxpayers’ money?” This was a serious scandal so great that Starmer managed to raise it.

    Ignoring the fact his Tory Government was chronically unprepared and late to take action the PM excused the profiteering saying, “When this crisis began, we were urged by the right hon. and learned Gentleman to remove the blockages in our procurement process to get personal protective equipment. As he will remember, we faced a very difficult situation where around the world there were not adequate supplies of PPE. Nobody had enough PPE. We shifted heaven and earth to get 32 billion items of PPE into this country. I am very proud of what has been achieved: 70% of PPE is now made, or capable of being made, in this country, when it was only 1% at the beginning of the pandemic. It is entirely typical of Captain Hindsight that he now attacks our efforts to procure PPE. He said then that we were not going fast enough but now says we went too fast. He should make his mind up.”

    Starmer replied, “The Prime Minister talks about hindsight; I say catch up. I called for a circuit breaker; the Prime Minister stood there at the Dispatch Box and said it would be a disaster and he was not going to do it. Then he caught up and did exactly that just a few weeks later. We now have a longer, harder lockdown as a result of his delay, so I will not take that from him. Last week, the Prime Minister could not explain how his Government ended up paying £150 million on contracts that did not deliver a single piece of usable PPE; this week, he is effectively defending the paying of £21 million on a contract with no oversight. This morning, the independent National Audit Office concluded that the Government’s approach was, in its words, ‘diminished public transparency’. It reported that more than half of all contracts relating to the pandemic, which, Mr Speaker, totalled £10.5 billion, were handed out without competitive tender and that suppliers with political connections were 10 times more likely to be awarded contracts.”

    This was a hard bullet to dodge and Starmer knew he was on to a really serious flaw that reeked of corruption. He continued, “We are eight months into this crisis and the Government are still making the same mistakes. Can the Prime Minister give a cast-iron assurance that from now on all Government contracts will be subject to proper process with full transparency and accountability?” The PM knew this wouldn’t play well in the Media as he replied, “All Government contracts are of course going to be published in the due way and they are already being published. Again, I must say that it is extraordinary that the right hon. Gentleman now attacks the Government for securing personal protective equipment in huge quantities. I want to thank again all the people who were involved in that effort: Lord Deighton and literally thousands of others who built up a mountain of PPE against any further crisis.” Johnson tried to confuse the issue with his familiar ‘now he supports me, now he doesn’t’ ploy.

    The PM continued, “The right hon. and learned Gentleman talks about transparency and moving too fast to secure contracts. He should know that the shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, the hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves), wrote to the Government, attacking us for failing to approach various companies, including a football agent who was apparently offering to supply ventilators and a historical clothing manufacturing company that offered to make 175 gowns per week and whose current range includes 16th century silk bodices. Again, at the time, he bashed the Government for not moving fast enough. It is absolutely absurd that Captain Hindsight is now once again trying to score political points by attacking us for moving too fast. I am proud of what we did to secure huge quantities of PPE during a pandemic. Any Government would do the same.”

    The PM sounded pathetic and must have been relieved to move on to familiar Tory ‘stroking when Karl MᶜCartney said, “I feel like a positive rose between two negative thorns today…” as he started into the vital issue of support for football clubs. The PM agreed. The SNP Ian Blackford would not be so tame, “May I wish the Prime Minister and all those who are self-isolating well? Over the past 20 years, Westminster has imposed an extreme Brexit, an illegal war in Iraq, £9,000 tuition fees, the Windrush scandal, the rape clause and the bedroom tax, and a decade of Tory austerity cuts which have pushed millions into poverty. At the same time, the Scottish Parliament has delivered free prescriptions, free tuition fees, free personal care, free bus travel, the baby box, the Scottish child payment, and world-leading climate action, all of which make Scotland a fairer and more equal place in which to live. Does the Prime Minister understand why the people in Scotland think it is he and his Parliament that are the real disaster?”

    The PM hated such disgraceful comparisons and defensively replied, “I respectfully refer the right hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave to the Leader of the Opposition. I do think that his policies of wanting to break up the Union are a disaster and I wish that he and his party would focus on the real priorities of the people of Scotland, on education, on health, on tackling crime, on housing, and on the issues that matter to all our people. That is what a devolved Government should do. I was very proud to run a devolved administration and that is what we focused on. We did not endlessly go on about constitutional change and the break-up of the UK.” Blackford was aghast saying, “My goodness, I am not sure if the Prime Minister was listening, because I just charted some of the achievements of the Scottish Government delivering on behalf of the people of Scotland. We have seen no apology and no regrets from this Prime Minister. His attack on devolution was not just a slip of the tongue; it was a slip of the Tory mask.”

    Blackford continued to blast the PM, “The chasm between Westminster and the Scottish people has never been bigger. We know that these were not just flippant remarks, when Scotland faces the biggest threat to devolution with the Tory power grab Bill. The fact is that Scotland has been completely ignored by Westminster. We now face an extreme Brexit, a power grab and another round of Tory cuts, all being imposed against our will by a Tory Government that we did not vote for. Is it not the case that the real disaster facing the people of Scotland is another 20 years of Westminster Government? Is it not clearer than ever that the only way to protect Scotland’s interests, our Parliament and our place in Europe is for Scotland to become an independent country?”

    The PM objected, “I could not disagree more with the right hon. Gentleman; he is totally wrong. What the UK does as a whole is far bigger, better and more important than what we can do as individual nations and regions. Let us look at the way in which the UK has pulled together during the pandemic: the way in which the armed services have worked to get testing throughout the whole UK; the way in which the furlough scheme has been deployed across the UK; and the billions and billions of pounds that have been found to help people across the whole UK, and businesses in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England. The UK has shown its value and will continue to show its value. The right hon. Gentleman talks about wanting to take Scotland back into the European Union. That seemed to be what he was saying just now.” An independent Scotland thriving within the EU while the rest of the UK rapidly declines into poverty stricken irrelevance would make a disastrous example of the catastrophic crash-out Brexit decision!

    Johnson tried to press his futile risible argument saying, “What he and the people of Scotland should understand is that that is a massive surrender of power by the people of Scotland straight back to Brussels, just as this country and the people of Scotland have taken it back again. That is power not just over many aspects of their lives and regulations, but, of course, to control Scottish fisheries as well. All that would be lost under his programme, and I do not believe that it will commend itself to the Scottish people. That programme was decisively rejected in 2014. I believe that it is something that they would almost certainly reject again, but, as he said before…” Johnson was gearing up to seriously run off at the mouth, delivering his crashingly boring and monotonous weekly Tory Party Political broadcast, but he was on Zoom and finally the Speaker could no longer resist the temptation… he hit the mute mutton! Not so discreetly cutting off the PM to drown out his drivel with the decisive words, “I call Sir Graham Brady.”

    There was the usual batch of ‘stroking’ non-questions from Tory MPs often including a pitch for funds “In order to truly level up constituencies like mine…” Tory Gareth Bacon brought up the issue of dangerous cladding on buildings, focused of course on owners unable to sell their leasehold flats. Then Labour Kate Osborne attacked “Government plans to scrap the union learning fund,” I featured in an earlier post. She said, “thousands of workers, about 200,000 a year, many of them low-paid, will miss out on training opportunities.” The PM excitedly told her how he had reinvented it as his “lifetime skills guarantee,” after removing trusted Union involvement.

    Labour’s Chi Onwurah said, “Child poverty is evil, I know; I grew up with it.” Speaking on behalf of her constituents, with half of the children growing up poor, “and that was before covid,” she begged for Universal Credit not to be cut by £1,000 a year in April. Labour’s Ian Byrne quoted. “Professor Ian Sinha from Alder Hey Children’s Hospital in Liverpool, West Derby, recently stated that the environment a child develops in, even before being born, can affect its DNA detrimentally by 10%.” In reply to such points the PM lied about child poverty under the Tories. Labour’s Mohammad Yasin said, “Six out of 10 people who have died from covid-19 are disabled.” Yet, during the pandemic, their care had been cut back, they weren’t getting support and there was no uprate of legacy benefits. Labour’s Bambos Charalambous quoted, “The Lancet shows that black, Asian and minority ethnic people are twice as likely as white people to catch coronavirus and more likely to go into intensive care…” would they be prioritized for vaccination?

    Why is ‘forensic’ Keir Starmer relying in his backbench MPs to ask all the tough questions? His limp ‘opposition’ is pathetic and he really needs to go as does the shambolic Tory Cabal who seized power in the Covert 2019 Rigged Election. A full Investigation to expose the truth could return Jeremy Corbyn to power to become PM. Labour/Co-op James Murray had slammed the PM, saying, “In March, the Government’s chief scientific officer said that keeping covid deaths below 20,000 would be a good outcome but still an enormous number of deaths. We have now passed 50,000 deaths and suffered the deepest recession of any G7 country, with GDP dropping by 10% in the past year. Why does the Prime Minister think the UK has had the deepest recession in the G7 and the highest number of covid deaths in Europe?” The PMs lame response was, “This is a global pandemic….” The Speaker thanked the broadcasting team “for making today happen.” “Hear, hear,” said the PM; he would have to sort-out that damn mute button! DO NOT MOVE ON!

    #62538 Reply
    Kim Sanders-Fisher

    As the battle for the soul of the Labour Party heats up, the Skwawkbox Article entitled, “Exclusive: Welsh Labour branch becomes first to vote no confidence in Keir Starmer,” it said that, “Keir Starmer’s self-inflicted abysmal week continued on Thursday evening with a successful vote of no confidence by Labour members in Aberconwy. On the same day that NEC members ordered party general secretary David Evans to rebuke Starmer for his political interference, contrary to the EHRC recommendations Starmer has promised to implement, in Jeremy Corbyn’s disciplinary case and for undermining an NEC panel that was following independent legal advice when it lifted Corbyn’s suspension, Starmer’s office also received a letter from Jeremy Corbyn demanding copies of all communications relating to the former leader’s suspension, reinstatement and subsequent withdrawal of the whip. At the same time, a string of local Labour groups passed motions calling for Corbyn’s immediate reinstatement.”

    Now the Skwawkbox are soliciting tips on which CLPs are following suit so that they can keep us fully updated on the push-back campaign! This does not bode well for Starmer’s Progressive Left Labour Socialist purge. In reporting how the, “Labour leader’s bad night continued,” Skwawkbox said, “Valley Branch Dyffryn in Aberconwy passed what may well be the first of many motions of no confidence by local parties in Starmer and his leadership: Motion of No Confidence in Keir Starmer. This branch believes no one can argue with this quote from Red Labour: ‘The right to debate, strike, speak out in support and to show solidarity to others goes to the very soul of the Labour Party. Freedom of speech and democracy are precious but both are increasingly at risk. We must not stand by in silence whilst these hard fought for fundamental rights are ripped away.’ It is therefore with great regret that this branch finds it necessary to list the following actions which are indicative of the Labour leadership’s descent into dictatorship.

    These actions are designed to remove those members who are prepared to challenge the leadership when it puts the interests of multinationals, economic growth and the so called ‘national interest’ before workers, Trades Unions, solidarity with the oppressed and disadvantaged and world peace:

    1. Whipping the PLP to abstain on the ‘Licence to Kill Bill’ and the ‘Spycops Bill’. The Labour Party should be making it clear by their actions (not just their words) that they oppose any illegal actions by British Armed Forces and likewise oppose the despicable actions of undercover police officers in the UK.

    2. Commenting on an ongoing disciplinary matter in order to gain political capital when the General Secretary has expressly forbidden it. (Andrew Marr Show, Sunday 1 Nov, after the suspension of Jeremy Corbyn). This gave the impression that the Labour leader is allowed freedom of speech that members are not.

    3. Disassociating himself and the party from the tradition of solidarity with the oppressed peoples and nations of the world. Labour and Starmer should have shown solidarity with Assange and the Black Lives Matter movement. It is not acceptable that there was silence in response to events in Venezuela and Bolivia.

    4. Bullying and authoritarianism (even more so than Tony Blair). Starmer sold out Rebecca Long Bailey (a fervent advocate of the Green New Deal), the members and the previous leader. His latest action, cynically removing the Labour Whip from Jeremy Corbyn, is further evidence of his determination to rid the party of Socialists.

    5. Tackling anti-Semitism and other forms of racism. Starmer refused to support and stand up for Black MPs on the left. He has failed to recognise Jewish diversity by ignoring Jewish Voice for Labour and other Jewish party members who supported Jeremy Corbyn and the socialist policies he promoted. He has allowed himself to be pressured by organisations such as the Jewish Labour Movement, the Board of Deputies and Labour for Israel. He authorised out-of-court settlements, contrary to legal advice, leaving the door open for unlimited claims against the Labour Party.

    6. Complete disregard of Labour Party democracy. The Green New Deal was ratified by the 2019 conference, published in the 2019 manifesto and is supported by 70% of the membership. Replacing it with the ‘Green Recovery Plan’ is a wishywashy, half-hearted, sop to multinationals. The country and the world do not have time to take it easy!!

    7. Starmer’s transition from apparent socialist in the mid 1980’s (pro-bono work with pickets, denouncing the use of ‘paramilitary’ policing methods) to an establishment stooge when Director of Public Prosecutions and as an MP.Starmer failed to protect Julian Assange, increased fines and custodial sentences for benefit cheats, increased powers of arrest for protesters and oversaw CPS involvement in police undercover work in left wing groups. He also refused to indict either the policemen who killed Jean Charles de Menendez or the policeman involved in death of Ian Tomlinson. As an MP he abstained on the 2nd Reading of the 2015 Welfare Bill.

    8. Complete u-turn on his pledge to unite the party and keep the party on the socialist path which very nearly ensured a Labour Government in 2017. His actions during his first 7 months have promoted factionalism never seen before in the party, in
    complete contrast to the actions of Jeremy Corbyn when he took over the leadership. This branch therefore moves that it has no confidence in Keir Starmer as Leader of the Labour Party.
    The branch also unanimously passed a motion demanding the immediate restoration of the whip to Jeremy Corbyn.”

    The Media are too ready to support Keir Starmer’s evisceration of the Labour Party as is rather obvious from the HuffPost Article entitled, “Can Keir Starmer Find A Way Through The Jeremy Corbyn Row?” They generously contend that, “As legal letters fly, the Labour leader needs to show his political skills more than ever” but wrongly place the onus on Corbyn to appologise for telling the truth, “Jeremy has got to make a full apology. No ifs, no buts, no caveats, no qualifying sentences. He has got to admit he got it wrong. It’s not every day that one former leader of the Labour party tries to tell another former leader of the Labour party what to do. But although Gordon Brown’s words were typically robust, it seems very likely that Jeremy Corbyn is typically determined not to take anyone’s orders. In fact, far from some kind of olive branch being devised to mend relations between Keir Starmer and his predecessor, tonight Corbyn and his allies have ‘lawyered up’ for an almighty legal battle to get him reinstated as a Labour MP.”

    HuffPost report that, “Not one but two letters have been sent by Corbyn’s solicitors to the party, preparing the grounds for legal action. The raft of claims includes breach of contract, “double jeopardy” of being effectively tried twice for the same alleged offence, indirect discrimination, freedom of speech and data protection breaches. A mass of documentation is also sought, including the use of GDPR laws to make subject access requests for any references to Corbyn’s case within Starmer’s office and Labour HQ. A further letter to general secretary David Evans from 14 Corbyn-supporting members of the NEC warns of legal action is likely. The NEC members say Starmer’s decision to withhold the whip undermines the party’s own disciplinary process, after a properly constituted panel decided to restore his membership this week. Their letter says the ‘direct political interference’ in the process by the Labour leader was ‘unacceptable’.” Time for ‘Mr. Nice Guy’ to get tough: no more ‘turn the other cheek,’ enough is enough!

    According to HuffPost, “it is that phrase – direct political interference – that is at the heart of this whole mess, for Starmer’s critics on both the left and the right. In fact, the idea of ‘acceptable’ political interference seems to be the cause of much of the conflict. One of the central charges against Starmer is that for all his protestations that he was staying out of disciplinary process against Corbyn, his own office was actively engaged in contacts with the former leader’s helpers in a bid to find a “grand compromise” (as I mentioned on Tuesday) to resolve the situation. That compromise involved a clarification from Corbyn that concerns about anti-Semitism were neither ‘exaggerated’ nor ‘overstated’ (both words he had used to talk about the scale of the issue). The clarification would be published before an NEC panel met. In return, the party would restore his membership, while sending him a ‘reminder of values’, one of the weakest possible sanctions.” We must ‘remind’ the NEC that adhering to the truth is an essential value for MPs!

    The HuffPost clarify that, “It’s worth saying that Starmer’s allies reject the claim that there was any such deal, while accepting that Corbyn’s team lobbied hard for his reinstatement. There is also dispute over alleged agreement about the timing of the clarification statement, the wording of which is said to have been agreed by both sides within two days of the original suspension. Although some of Starmer’s allies may have wanted the statement published earlier than this week, Corbyn felt that doing it too far in advance of an NEC decision would lead to charges that it didn’t go far enough and wasn’t a full apology (see, G Brown) and would then make life difficult for the NEC. It’s claimed that Starmer then broke his side of the agreement (seen as a sensible compromise by its supporters, and a dirty deal by its critics). The NEC panel imposed a stronger sanction than expected, issuing a formal ‘warning of conduct’ letter. It also made a request for him to pull down the original Facebook statement that got him suspended.”

    HuffPost claim that, “Starmer’s withholding the whip was the biggest dealbreaker, however. Which brings us back to the current impasse. The perception that Starmer ‘reneged’ on the ‘deal’ is what is making Corbyn dig in right now. Even though there are still efforts on both sides to find some way out, I understand the former leader is reluctant to take any assurances at face value: if he agreed a new statement, there is real doubt Starmer could guarantee it would lead to a return to the PLP. ‘Starmer chameleon’, is the Left’s song right now. But Starmer faces claims that he has also reneged on his promises to the Jewish community. As one Labour MP put it to me after the NEC decision: ‘First they were attacked, now they feel betrayed.’ Starmer himself said when he was elected in April that the test of his leadership would be that former Jewish members could feel comfortable to return. So when Margaret Hodge told him she was ready to quit this week, the pressure to act was intense.”

    The HuffPost were eager to let the Labour NEC panel off the hook for making that awful decision in favour of reinstating Corbyn. To make their decision more understandable HuffPost say that, “Amid the fog of civil war, there are lots of conflicting claims in all this. One is that the NEC panel decision was ‘unanimous’. I’m told that actually the whole reason its meeting lasted four and a half hours was because two members fiercely resisted the idea of readmitting Corbyn. There was no formal vote at the end, but more a weary resignation that they were outnumbered. One key argument against Corbyn was that he breached the rule which sanctions conduct that is ‘grossly detrimental’ to the party. Crucially, the party has frequently considered that ‘seniority’ within the party is an ‘aggravating factor’ for such cases. That’s why councillors and council deputy leaders have been expelled in the past, and you can’t get more ‘senior’ than a former leader of the entire party.”

    HuffPost say, “Some in the party think Starmer’s biggest failure was not to follow through on his own pledge made in April to ‘begin work immediately to deliver on my campaign pledge to establish an independent complaints process’. Others think that it will be impossible for any independent system to work out what is and isn’t ‘grossly detrimental’ the party, rather than the party itself. As a former DPP, Starmer may believe the legal case against him is thin, overblown and unlikely to be treated seriously by any court (judges are reluctant to engage in internal party rulebooks, but even less keen on interfering in party political decisions like whipping). One extra complication in all this is Corbyn’s own unique approach to politics. In what is seen by some as a microcosm of his leadership reign, I’m told even some of his supporters found it difficult to get hold of him at key points in recent weeks, when his sign-off was needed. ‘He just went awol,’ one said. A degree of chaos meant some things were decided at the very last minute.”

    The HuffPost reveal the latest twist in the ongoing saga, saying, “The new letter from chief whip Nick Brown to Corbyn (as revealed by the Guardian) informing him of a three month suspension from the whip, may strangely offer a glimmer of a way out. It refers to him being suspended pending a PLP investigation, which suggests an interpretation of breaches of its standing orders is still up for grabs. But ultimately it’s a lack of trust between Starmer and Corbyn that dominates things right now. And the political as well as legal fallout it has begun.” The Labour Party has a nasty track record of going after the same target victim over and over again until their reputation is decimated by very public smears and removal is final. HuffPost say, “Former chair Ian Lavery told our podcast today that Starmer was a ‘tinpot dictator’. And while making clear he wanted everyone to unite, Lavery warned: ‘There’s always the opportunity of a leadership challenge and the rules allow that to happen. It just depends how Keir’s leadership develops’.”

    In another HuffPost Article entitle, “Keir Starmer Could Face Leadership Challenge If He Keeps Dividing Labour, MP Warns,” they report, “Ian Lavery tells HuffPost UK that Starmer appears to have a ‘personal and political vendetta’ after refusing to let Corbyn sit as a Labour MP. Keir Starmer has been warned he could face a leadership challenge if he continues what appears to be a ‘vendetta’ against Jeremy Corbyn and his supporters. Former Labour chair Ian Lavery told HuffPost UK’s Commons People podcast that the ‘opportunity’ for a leadership challenge would always be available, but stressed he wants the party to ‘settle down’ and ‘unite’. Lavery hit out at Starmer for refusing to let Corbyn sit as a Labour MP – even though his party membership had been restored by Labour’s ruling body. He was initially suspended last month over his reaction to the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s report into anti-Semitism in the party.”

    According to HuffPost, “Lavery told Commons People: ‘It looks very much that this is a vengeful, divisive, provocative sort of move from Keir Starmer. ‘This isn’t about uniting the party – it looks to me as if it’s a personal and political vendetta now from the new leader of the party to the previous leader of the party’.” I would add that Keir Starmer’s conduct comes across as the ego-driven power trip of a very insecure individual who lacks not only confidence, but any genuine ambitious ideas; his fantisemitism navel-gazing, ‘I’m better than Corbyn’ pitch is an uninspiring turn-off. They say, “The Wansbeck MP urged Labour to set out clearly who was making the decisions on Corbyn’s suspension. ‘Who made the decision that Keir has got the overriding powers to overrule the national executive committee [Labour’s ruling body]?’ he said. ‘I’m not being melodramatic but that’s a little bit like a tin pot dictatorship to me. ‘We’ve got to have some form of democracy in the party and at this moment in time it doesn’t look like we have’.”

    HuffPost report that, “Lavery said he would refuse to ‘walk away’ from Labour if Corbyn was not reinstated fully. But he said ex-MP Thelma Walker’s resignation was evidence that anger was not confined to the hard left of the party.” She is not the only person quitting Labour in disgust; it could soon become a mass exodus. HuffPost quote Lavery saying, “I want the party to be united. I want the party to flourish, move forward, win an election in 2024. If that’s with Keir Starmer, that’s fine,” Lavery said. They add, “Asked what he meant and whether Starmer would be Labour leader at the next election, Lavery said: ‘I hope that Keir can unify the party. I’ve got to say the first few months of his leadership would suggest that’s not his intention – unless he proves otherwise, of course. ‘Keir is the leader. Obviously he should be in pole position to be leader of the party at the next election. ‘But there’s a lot hinging on how Keir reacts not just to this but how Keir performs on behalf of the party.”

    According to HuffPost, “Lavery said Starmer had caused ‘absolute mayhem’ among the Labour membership since being elected leader. There is ‘genuine concern’ about Starmer’s willingness to support the government’s Covid policy and abstain on legislation opposed by many in the party, including the controversial Overseas Operations Bill, he said. Lavery also called on the leader to deliver on his pledge to unify the party and his 10-point plan, which included promises to continue with ‘radical’ policies such as taxing the rich, backing public ownership, and legislating against ‘illegal wars’. Asked what happens if Starmer fails to deliver, Lavery said: ‘There’s always the opportunity of a leadership challenge and the rules allow that to happen.’ It just depends how Keir’s leadership develops. ’I’ve got to say I’m very disappointed in it in this moment in time and it’s not a left/right issue. ‘Keir Starmer is a very decent, genuine individual. ‘But it’s the direction that’s coming from him’.”

    Lavery went on: “‘New leadership’ [Starmer’s slogan] is basically a message telling the rest of the country Jeremy Corbyn’s gone. ‘Why shouldn’t the message be something the party actually stands for? ‘For the many, not the few’ – that was fantastic.” I have to agree that the ‘New Leadership’ banner was like sending a massive ‘fxxk you’ to the progressive Left of the Labour Party who had achieved so much over the Corbyn years. Tory Austerity wa
    s fully exposed as an ideological exploitation scam not a painful fiscal necessity; that was a huge achievement. The label on the snake oil has changed, but Tory ideology has not: the new exploitation scam being touted as ‘levelling up’ must be robustly challenged because in practical terms it is the diametric opposite. The fight to extend Furlough during crippling northern lockdowns, begging for the poorest children in the UK to get free school meals, promised laptops not delivered, and now another threatened pay freeze: this ‘Decimating Down’ targets the working poor again and again.

    It took a famous young footballer to pitch in and demand food for hungry deprived children; it took Metro Mayor Andy Burnham to protest the unfairness of asking minimum wage workers to subsist of 60% of their wages. When large multi-ethnic protests took to the streets in support of ‘Black Lives Matter,’ Starmer dismissed their demand for changes to policing, brandishing his disreputable CPS record. He disparagingly referred to the BLM campaign as ‘a moment!’ Where was Keir Starmer when he should have been demonstrating robust opposition in Parliament and demanding fair treatment on behalf of the working poor? Starmer was still busy obsessing over fantisemitism in the Labour Party and using former Labour Leader Jeremy Corbyn as a scapegoat while he buckled to the demands of the Zionist Lobby and the BOD. The obscene payment to silence John Weir’s SLAPP Suit, despite advise from Labour Lawyers he would win, established Starmer as the ‘Captain of Capitulation:’ this leaves Labour vulnerable to further suits.

    Ian Lavery describes Keir Starmer’s disgraceful track record so far by saying, “But everything seems at this moment in time as though there’s a political provocation from the leader’s office.” Lavery wants to see the Party settle down, unify, move on and “hold the government to account,” but the damage Starmer has done so far is ripping Labour apart. Starmer has burned his bridges, but he stands ready to pour more petrol on the flames. Starmer should face a leadership challenge because he deliberately deceived Labour Party members last time. If the unfathomable result of the Covert 2019 Rigged Election had been challenged and fully Investigated, then I believe the corruption of Boris Johnson’s miraculous ‘Tory landslide victory’ would have been exposed. Labour would not have suffered all those excruciating demands to grovel in trying to explain defeat. Jeremy Corbyn wouldn’t have resigned he would be providing the decent progressive Socialist leadership we deserve from a legitimate Prime Minister in this time of crisis. DO NOT MOVE ON!

    #62546 Reply
    Kim Sanders-Fisher

    Even before the EHRC Report was released, Starmer vindictively targeted and scapegoated Corbyn, his leadership predecessor/ In the Prole Star Article entitled, “The Labour ‘Unity’ Con – And The Tragic Results, Steve McKenzie warned of the fake promise of ‘unity’ as expounded by the newly elected Labour Leader. He wrote, “A great deal of play is made about the word unity. It is the unity of a workforce that can win a strike. It is unity, behind an agreed candidate, that can win all sorts of elections. However, as we have witnessed over the last five years, it is pursuit of a false unity, with those following their own agenda, that can, and does, help bring down leaders, and destroy movements. A call for unity, based on false principles, or no principles at all, or based on appealing to the lowest common denominator, that destroys the very unity it claims to be seeking to create.” He lays out point by point the destructive path under the deliberately deceitful banner of claimed unity, the first of which I quoted in an earlier post.

    Topping a scathing list of unnecessary harm inflicted on the Labour Party, McKenzie says, “The woeful strategy of appeasement and apology, supposedly in a quest for unity, with those on the right who were ruthlessly conducting a one sided civil war, against the left in the Labour party, was a central cause of the downfall of Jeremy Corbyn. The pitiful response of the left, apologising in response to every false allegation of antisemitism, was an embarrassment. Watching decent anti racist campaigners like Mark Wadsworth and Jackie Walker being thrown under a bus, (unity ???), was infuriating. Seeing the cowardly action of the NEC, unanimously adopting the full IHRA definition of antisemitism, was exasperating. These actions were the result of the failure to stand up to the bogus antisemitism smear campaign, and to call it out for what it was, and still is. As we have witnessed the consequences of this were an unmitigated disaster. Every step backwards by the left, led to the right taking two steps forward.”

    Although I would add Tory postal voting fraud, McKenzie claims that, “A combination of right wing manoeuvres lost us the 2019 election, however, their real objective, of toppling Jeremy Corbyn at all costs, was achieved. Despite this certain parts of the old left appear to have learned nothing at all from this experience. Things have unfortunately continued in the same vein. They continue to use the same strategy and tactics, appeasement, and continue to get the same result, defeat. Those who fail to learn the lessons of history are doomed to make the same mistakes.” He says, “Following Jeremy Corbyn’s resignation we were all supposed to unite behind Rebecca Long Bailey, the left’s continuity candidate in the leadership election. The totally lacklustre campaign, led by the old left, included Long-Bailey continuing to appease, by accepting the Board of Deputies’ ten pledges. The upshot of this was only 130,000 of us uniting behind her and voting for the left candidate. Consequently Sir Keir Starmer was elected, promising us, you guessed it – unity.”

    Following on from that continued calamity McKenzie cites the NEC By-Election fiasco saying that, “At the same time as the leadership election was taking place, byelections were taking place for NEC positions. The old, and somewhat discredited left organisations, were insisting that there should be unity, behind those who they, through their front organisations, had decided the left candidates should be. Of course there is no way that unity can be achieved on such a basis, consequently we ended up with a number of left candidates standing. Many of the serious left candidates, who were opposed to the witch-hunt were suspended, following spurious and anonymous allegations. Ostensibly to enable an investigation to take place. In reality to stop them standing in the election. (This has become a standard tactic of the right wing). Despite all of this carry-on, and not because of it, the result was a split vote, and another defeat for the left in the NEC byelections.”

    McKenzie says that, “Since then things have moved rapidly to the right as Sir Keir, and those behind him, have sought to send a message to the establishment, that the Labour party is safe in their hands. Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition are indeed just that… The ghost of Jeremy Corbyn, and more importantly, what he stood for, is being laid to rest.” He highlights a series of right wing moves after the departure of a key figure, “Left wing general secretary Jennie Formby lasted a month before she was gone. She was replaced by right wing Blairite, David Evans. Then there was the leaked report, that exposed: Racism, Sexism and Abuse among senior right wing paid officials. A conspiracy against Jeremy Corbyn, falsely making it appear as if he was not dealing with antisemitism allegations. Channelling funds in the 2017 general election, away from marginals to safe seats, with right wing Labour MP’s. It was a major embarrassment for the right wing, and risked exposing the reality about what had really been going on.”

    McKenzie has sharp criticism for Starmer’s handling of the leaked report and its explosive contents. He justifiably claims that, “This has been met by the leadership with a rigged inquiry that has been set up to fail.” This is, “an inquiry that is designed to whitewash the matter, and kick it into the long grass.” Worse still McKenzie is alarmed by Starmer’s total, “failure to hold the government to account.” He is cynical about, “Our ‘unity’ candidate, and ‘forensic’ expert, Sir Keir, has been far less decisive when criticising and dealing with clown prince Johnson and the woefully inadequate Tory government. Its absolute mishandling of the coronavirus pandemic has been, and is, a disaster. A crisis, that their absolute incompetence has turned into a catastrophe, that has caused tens of thousands of unnecessary deaths. A forensic analysis and damning critique was deemed inappropriate by the leadership of the so-called Opposition. Instead, playing the role of silent witness was thought to be far more politically astute.”

    McKenzie points to yet another unforgivable mistake Starmer has made: “turning on the unions.” He describes, “One of the most telling examples of waging war on the left, while remaining uncritical of the government, was the failure to back the education unions, and the dismissal of Rebecca Long-Bailey. Our knight of the realm, was demonstrably half-hearted when it came to backing the NEU in their campaign against the thoroughly irresponsible attempt, by the Tory government, to send schools back early, before adequate safety measures were in place. Rebecca Long-Bailey lost her job in the shadow cabinet, partly as a result of backing the union. (of course the bogus antisemitism smear campaign was used, yet again by the right, as an excuse to dismiss her. Once again resolving a political problem by organisational means).” The Unions currently supply the bulk of the Labour Party’s funding, but with his controversial actions so far, Starmer has now put their continued financial support in serious jepody.

    Few issues have ignited more fury among Labour Party members than Keir Starmer’s outrageously rash decision to compensate John Ware and the Panorama 6. McKenzie rightly describes, “The latest outrageous behaviour that is helping to turn a split in the Labour party into a chasm, has been Starmer’s decision to settle a court case, costing hundreds of thousands of pounds, and issue a grovelling apology, to six former Labour Party employees who appeared in the incredibly biased and one-sided Panorama programme, ‘Is Labour Anti-Semitic’. [Note: the title of the programme is spelled as it appeared at broadcast – ironically using the hyphenated spelling of ‘antisemitism’ which has been discredited by the IHRA as having Nazi connotations]” When Corbyn openly criticized the obscene, totally unwarranted payout Ware opportunistically hit him with a SLAPP Suit, but Ware has fallen eerily silent now that Corbyn has amassed a substantial legal fund to fight the case in Court, something Ware hadn’t anticipated,

    McKenzie goes on to describe evidence of Keir Starmer’s, “unconscious’ bias,” saying, “We haven’t even touched on the racist behaviour that has been displayed by Sir Keir Starmer so far. Evidently, according to our leader, the Black Lives Matter campaign is ‘a moment’. No doubt a genuine mistake though, the highly experienced lawyer just forgot the word ‘defining’ in both television interviews… Add to this the bullying of Diane Abbott and Bell Ribeiro-Addy, when they spoke at a meeting where two Jewish members, who had been expelled from the party, were part of the 400+ in attendance, and a pattern begins to emerge. The fact that Starmer then informs us that he is booking himself in for an unconscious bias awareness course with an e-learning module lasting just 20 minutes, is farcical and just adds insult to injury.”

    McKenzie contrasts, “Genuine Unity v Unity at all costs,” saying that, “The bogus ‘unity’ candidate in the Labour leadership campaign has proved by his actions that accepting the totally unprincipled, ‘unity at all costs’ approach, is wrong and politically disastrous. The cynical calls for unity, by an undemocratic cabal, is also divisive and plays into the hands of the right wing. He asks, “Are the right overplaying their hand?” McKenzie claims that, “there are reasons to be optimistic,” explaining how, “It would appear that the right wing have really overplayed their hand on this occasion” and why he fees this is so. According to McKenzie, “The rapid turn to the right in the party has jolted many serious socialists and genuine trade unionists into life.” He asserts that, “Anyone who scratches beneath the surface can now see that the unity candidate was nothing of the sort. Unity at all costs, in the mouths of these people, is meaningless, and merely a method to deceive, while their real agenda is being followed.”

    McKenzie elaborates on, “Real unity, based on honesty, transparency and basic principles, is a completely different concept, and something that we should all be aspiring to achieve. Unity based on socialist policies and solidarity with workers in struggle must be differentiated from the false unity of the graveyard, that we have been sold by those with an alien agenda, and a vested self interest to protect.” In the few short weeks since McKenzie wrote this analytical article about the reality of rapidly diminishing unity in the Labour Party, Keir Starmer has accelerated the pace of division as he and his right wing cabal have barely attempted to disguise the witch-hunt targeting of progressive Left Labour members, MPs and supporters; a deliberately targeted aggressive purge is well underway. While this has the full support of the BBC and right wing Media, Constituency Labour Party members are fighting back calling for Corbyn to be reinstated and passing votes of ‘no confidence’ in Starmer and General Secretary Evans.

    McKenzie has described Starmer and his team as “out of Control,” saying that, “The right, buoyed by their recent victories are behaving like a school bully who has let power go to their head. Thirty two former staffers are threatening to take the Labour party to court, based on the benchmark that the out of court settlement and the grovelling apology has set. That is of course, unless Jeremy has the whip withdrawn. Corbyn himself is being threatened with legal action. This has led to a backlash and a display of solidarity. At the time of writing over £300,000 has been raised for a legal defence fund, if it is needed.” That fund continues to climb, but just the fact it is there to fund a Court case will stop many opportunists in their tracks because SLAPP Lawsuits are essentially just harassment and intimidation cases that will not win if subjected to scrutiny in Court. McKenzie says, “More and more Labour party members are beginning to realise that there is no option but to stand up, get organized and fight back.”

    McKenzie concludes his findings by reminding us all of the dire need to fight-back and how we should proceed. He says, “That has to be based on: On genuine unity, which in turn is based on honesty, integrity and solidarity. No to the false unity of the graveyard based on duplicitous self serving agenda’s of the right. No to the fake unity of the old, and discredited voices of the invertebrate left, who have based their strategy on appeasement and apology. No to running away and leaving the Labour Party in a fit of pique. It only plays into the hands of the right wing.” So what will it take? McKenzie says, “Yes to getting off of our knees and starting a proper fight-back. Yes to getting properly organized in the Labour movement at a grassroots and rank and file level, in the CLP’s and on the councils, in the workplace and in the union branches.” Thankfully all of these actions are ramping up into high gear right now as Labour Party outrage continues to grow exponentially at a rate comparable with the Pandemic!

    In the Skwawkbox Article entitled, “Croydon Labour branch declares no confidence in Starmer and Evans,” they say the, “Motion passes with clear majority. The Skwawkbox revealed yesterday that Valley Branch Dyffryn in Aberconwy, Wales, had become the first to vote no confidence in Keir Starmer. Another Labour branch has also declared its lack of confidence in Starmer and in the party’s general secretary David Evans, and in fact beat Valley to the drop.” They report that, “One week ago, on 14 November, even before Starmer disgraced himself by contravening Labour rules to withdraw the whip from Jeremy Corbyn after Corbyn was unanimously reinstated by a right-dominated panel of Labour’s National Executive Committee (NEC) -Fairfield, Park Hill & Whitgift and South Croydon Branch, which represents four wards in the Croydon constituency, passed its vote by a clear majority.”

    The Skwawkbox warn, “There have been only a few days since the whip was withdrawn from Corbyn, yet dozens of constituency and branch parties have already passed motions supporting Corbyn and/or condemning Starmer and Evans. Many more are busy arranging their own meetings, while right-dominated regional offices try frantically to block them. There is a groundswell building rapidly – and not one Labour’s hierarchy will enjoy.” Before the NEC ruling Evens had been ordering CLPs not to discuss support for Corbyn and some officials were suspended for disobeying this undemocratic dictate, Evens had issued similar threats trying to block CLP debate or motions surrounding the warped decision to use membership funds to pay of a baseless SLAPP suit brought by John Ware after legitimate criticism of his Panorama hatchet job, “Is Labour anti-Semitic?” But the ability of the current Labour Leadership team to shut down legitimate debate will be short lived especially with a growing number of no-confidence motions.

    The Skwawkbox also proudly announced, “Brand new, nightly, free working-class socialist channel launched tonight – Socialist Telly (Left Media TV).” They reported that, “A brand new – and free – socialist streaming channel has launched this evening: Left Media TV, or ‘Socialist Telly’. The station will be run by grassroots left activists and will feature current affairs, panel discussions, expert analysis and political education. The first transmission, which just ended, featured the excellent Cornish Damo interviewing working-class stalwart Jon Trickett: Socialist Telly’s Launch Event. Socialist Telly (@SocialistTelly) In what is believed to be a global first the programmes will, at least initially, run live on Twitter – the first live socialist broadcasts on the platform, followed by streaming on other social media platforms. Follow Socialist Telly on Twitter for the earliest access.” Oh how the Tories will ring their hands, it’s not like they can demand to have it shut down as they are trying to do with RT.

    With all the loud “Stop the Steal” protests and the angry claims of sore loser Donald Trump, he is actually right that the US postal vote was rigged, but he still did not manage to steal the Election. I received this in an email: “UPDATE: Postmaster Louis DeJoy Ordered to Account for Mail-In Voting Problems, Federal Judge says ‘Someone may have to pay a price’. 100,000 signers needed: Sign vote by mail pac’s petition to demand postmaster louis dejoy resign immediately for interfering in election. Louis DeJoy is a Trump loyalist whose reckless behavior put Democracy at risk: He slowed mail service to a CRAWL to delay mail-in ballots; He IGNORED a court order to ENSURE all delayed ballots were delivered; He’s DIRECTLY responsible for 300,000 MISSING mail-in ballots in the most important election of our time. The Postal Service has served Americans faithfully for decades, until DeJoy and Trump destroyed it to try to rig the election. Postmaster DeJoy is a threat to our Democracy, he must go; Demand DeJoy resign.”

    I wonder if Idox delayed or failed to send out our postal ballots here? In the UK this one unaccountable private company with strong Tory links and knowledge of our recent voting history sent out and then ‘managed’ the postal votes: but could we really trust them? We must question and build robust opposition to this corrupt Tory Government that swept to power following the incredulous ‘landslide victory’ of the Covert 2019 Rigged Election. Labour PMs who’d been virtually ignored, or peppered with questions over fantisemitism, before the vote were suddenly sought after and pushed into the spotlight to tell and retell the shameful defeat to reinforce the Tory lies. They were expected to exaggerate fantisemitism, demonize and blame Corbyn personally, make the ‘borrowed votes’ lie sound believable and repeatedly grovel to make the fake news stick. Tories were never put on the spot over huge swings in their favour after an abysmal election campaign, because if they had been the thin tissue of lies would have easily been stripped away; we still need a full Investigation of that vote to expose the truth and Get the Tories Out. DO NOT MOVE ON!

    #62561 Reply
    Kim Sanders-Fisher

    The typhoon in a teaspoon rages on unabated as the BBC and right dominated Media obsess in a relentless feeding frenzy over fantisemitism, with their determination to demonize and destroy an honest man who has dedicated his life to equality and global peace, for making a truthful statement! Meanwhile the Tories play by a different set of rules as they remain totally unaccountable, despite the grave seriousness of their repeated retched conduct, constant lawless abuse of high office and reckless squandering of public funds. Determined to set new precedents for functioning above the law, it certainly does not help that Starmer, Captain of Capitulation, offers no opposition and saves his venom for his noble predecessor. This corrupt Tory Government’s disgracefully dismissive approach to accountability is amply demonstrated in the Skwawkbox Article entitled, “Exclusive: Johnson will let Patel off after bullying report – because he ‘takes a different view’ on conduct code and blames civil service for her behaviour.”

    The Skwawlbox report that, “Home Secretary Priti Patel is under pressure after an investigation into a ‘tsunami’ of accusations of bullying found her guilty of breaches of the ministerial code in her behaviour toward staff – but the media have been speculating that Johnson will let her off the hook, even though breaches of the ministerial code of conduct are supposed to result in resignation or sacking.” They reveal that, “a circular from the Permanent Secretary to senior civil servants, seen by the Skwawkbox, confirms that Johnson is going to keep Patel in her post, because he blames the civil service for her behaviour and doesn’t think the code of conduct says what it says. The circular tells the PSs that: The prime minister takes a different view on the Code of Conduct and that the Patel situation happened because of: shortcomings in civil service leadership. Presumably the civil servants didn’t kowtow sufficiently deeply or tug their forelocks hard enough.”

    Skwawkbox criticize how, “The Tories’ complete contempt for democracy, good governance and public servants – and their love for avoiding accountability by blaming subordinates – comes to the fore yet again.” But this is hardly a report about one or two isolated incidents; Patel has a strong track record for bullying and abuse in all three of her pas Ministerial assignments and it seems this is just one aspect of her significant character flaws. According to the Canary Article entitled, “Priti Patel might be a bully, but she’s also so much worse than that,” they contend, “If the allegations are to be believed, then Priti Patel, “intentionally” or not, is a bully.” While they agree, “that’s terrible, it truly is, but given everything we know about her, should we be surprised?” They say not and “argue that bullying civil servants is at the lesser end of her faults. The only surprising thing is that people in the media expected her to lose her job given the behaviour that put her there in the first place.”

    Patel is not a nice character and her actions demonstrate an underlying streak of cruelty; so the Home Office was a perfect place for Johnson to place her, to ruthlessly get tough on crime and brutally abuse the rights of helpless Asylum seeking refugees. Under the ominous heading, “The life and should-be-crimes of Priti Patel,” the Canary report on how, “Gal-dem put together a handy guide to Patel’s greatest misdeeds/atrocities. Before her career in politics, Patel worked as a spin doctor on behalf of British American Tobacco (BAT). If you’re unfamiliar with tobacco, it’s a plant that, when smoked, causes: Addiction; Impotence; Death. If that wasn’t bad enough, tobacco companies actually charge their victims for the pleasure of being slowly made impotent/dead. If that wasn’t bad enough, Patel got paid hundreds of thousands to improve BAT’s image after its ‘joint venture with one of the world’s most brutal military regimes’.”

    The Canary highlight, “Her lax attitude towards dubious foreign powers continued in office. Most notably, Theresa May had to fire her as international development secretary in 2017 because Patel was conducting secret meetings with Israeli ministers and business people. Given her record as development secretary, we can assume she wasn’t there solely to regale them with stories of how she spun the enrichment of a military dictatorship. Speaking on her time in the role, gal-dem wrote:
    • Priti leveraged an £11bn aid budget as a trade incentive to make business deals with other countries in time for Brexit. It is illegal for the UK to explicitly use aid funds in this way, but that didn’t stop the former IDS from using the government funds to ‘further national interest’.
    • Her legacy as IDS also includes using the same money to support big business and the comfortable middle class in foreign countries. She funnelled hundreds of millions of pounds worth of the UK’s aid budget into corporate ventures. This includes setting up five-star luxury hotels and shopping malls in Nigeria and investing in Chinese online gambling and restaurant chains.”

    Focusing on the most controversial, the Canary list, “A collection of other positions she’s held in office include: Voting against same-sex marriage in 2013. Voting ‘against banning the detention of pregnant women’. Supporting the death penalty to ‘deter crime’. She later backtracked on this position – possibly because she found out how we historically dealt with those who collude with foreign powers. Recently, Patel has made waves as the home secretary, although thankfully not literally. The Bond-villain-esque proposals she’s considered include: Using wave-making pumps to splash refugees back to France. Erecting floating walls in the middle of the sea. Shipping people 4,000 miles away to a remote island in the Atlantic Ocean. While she avoided turning the English Channel into a vast murderscape that combined the worst elements of Waterworld and The Purge, the policies and rhetoric she’s enacted haven’t been much better. Largely they’ve revolved around failing to learn the lessons of Windrush.”

    Patel’s ruthless enactment of the most toxic Tory policies clearly demonstrates her lack of humanity. The Canary report how she has, “also seen her waging war on the ‘lefty lawyers’ who had the nerve to expect her to obey the law. Make no mistake – the alleged bullying that Patel is accused of should have seen her fired. In any ordinary government it would have done, but this is no ordinary government. Patel isn’t in her position despite being a bully; she’s there because of it. When you employ a person to be Darth Vader, you don’t fire them because they were rude to the rebels. This isn’t to say we shouldn’t hammer the government for Johnson’s decision. It is to say that media types who ignore all of the above shouldn’t be surprised when Johnson ignores a code of conduct. Oh shit – did it ‘clearly say there must be no bullying’? It’s almost like these parasites have the same level of disdain for procedure as they do the human beings they want to wave to death in the English Channel.”

    “Bully for them” the Canary cynically comment on how, “The establishment types weren’t horrified that Patel kept her job despite being a bully; they were horrified that she kept her job despite breaking a rule. This is where we are, though. We keep pointing out the horrible shit the Tories do, and the media keep acting like we’re the weirdoes for banging on about it. If you’re thinking, ‘well at least it will wake these people up’, it won’t. All it means is that the next time a minister makes a civil servant cry, Robert Peston will say something like: Ah, so although this sounds dubious, there is actually precedent for ministers behaving like a cross between Cruella de Vil and Joe Exotic. A month from now, the media will be back to normalising whatever nonsense Patel is up to. When that happens, remind yourself and everyone around you that Patel may be a bully, but like another infamous spin doctor, she’s also ‘so much worse than that’.”

    In the Canary Article entitled, “Priti Patel is at the centre of another growing storm,” they tell of even more mayhem caused by this toxic aberrant Tory Minister who should have been removed from office. They say, “’Priti Patel is involved in yet another growing scandal. This time it involves the deportation of people to Jamaica right before Christmas. Sadly, this story is now becoming all too familiar’. In her generosity at this seasonal time of good will she has decided to tear more West Indian families apart with her cruel immigration policy crack down, they tell of yet ‘Another Jamaican deportation flight’.” Patel’s Christmas cruelty lnows no bounds! They say that, “The Morning Star reported that on 2 December the Home Office is planning to deport around eight people. It said that these included: fathers of young children and a man who has lived in the country since he was seven, according to campaigners.”

    The Canary report that, “At least eight people have so far been booked onto the flight after they were detained and transferred to detention centres. Campaign group BARAC UK has started a petition. It’s calling on the Home Office to stop the flight. As of 11am on Sunday 22 November, over 147,000 people had signed it. Co-founder and national chair of BARAC UK Zita Holbourne told The Canary: We believe it is totally wrong to be deporting people to Jamaica in the middle of a pandemic and when the Windrush Lessons Learned recommendations have not yet been implemented. Most of those targeted for deportation have lived in the UK since they were small children. All their family are here and it’s the only home they know. Most of them have children. Also, recent research shows that there are huge psychological and lasting impacts of separation due to deportations on children.]”

    The Canary highlights “Untold damage” saying, “The research Holbourne noted is from the organisation Bail for Immigration Detainees (BiD). It found that: mounting empirical research that has begun to document the short-and long-term effects of detention and deportation on children and families. BiD noted:

    • “Physical separation in the case of deportation disrupts the essential secure base of a child, thereby risking internalizing symptoms (depression, anxiety) and externalizing behaviours (withdrawal, aggression)”.
    • “Deportation leads to the abrupt loss of a familiar home environment and family structure. It can lead to family dissolution”.
    • “Deportation is also associated with a loss of income, and numerous US studies show how this can lead to housing insecurity, food insecurity, psychological distress, and falling from low income into poverty”.
    • “The experience of deportation produces increased emotional and behavioural distress among children and places children at risk of developing a range of disorders, such as sleeping disorders, depression, anxiety and post-traumatic stress disorder”.
    • “The emotional effects are often compounded by successive traumatic experiences such as immigration raids and parental detention”.

    “In addition the Canary report on the Pandemic implications. Holbourne also told The Canary that the coronavirus (Covid-19) pandemic has made this deportation even more shocking. She said: In the middle of a pandemic, visiting is not permitted so families cannot even say goodbye. That this is happening just before Christmas will make it much worse for families in an already difficult year for us all. Black people are up to four times more likely to contract and die of coronavirus. So… [the Home Office] is putting people at risk and potentially spreading the virus by detaining them and taking them on long haul flights chained to two security guards. Holbourne noted that: Most of those targeted for deportation if not of the Windrush generation will have a link because they came to the UK to join parents or grandparents of the Windrush generation.”

    The Canary question “Righting wrongs?” They say, “In Jamaica, the flight has also made the news. The Gleaner reported it understood that “upwards of 20 persons” could be on the flight. Windrush National Organisation (WNO UK) chairman Dr Desmond Jaddoo told the Gleaner: We are very concerned because we are aware that once landed, too many of these people have no family or friends returning to. It does beg the question whether or not the Home Office really committed to righting the wrongs, which it has committed, particularly to Jamaicans, because families are on tenterhooks and in fear for the safety of their loved ones.”

    The Canary say, “Holbourne echoed a similar point. She told The Canary: Windrush Lessons Learned recommendations include the need for race equality training and the history of colonialism and Black people in Britain in order to avoid racist outcomes by the government. So it is disgraceful that despite the government setting up a commission on race and in the middle of them conducting a consultation on racism in Britain following the Black Lives Matter protests in the summer that they would think it acceptable to go ahead and do this now. The Home Office is claiming this flight will go ahead. It told the Morning Star: We make no apology for seeking to remove dangerous foreign criminals to keep the public safe. That is why we regularly operate charter flights to different countries to remove dangerous criminals who have no right to be here. But in February, a previous flight to Jamaica turned into a national scandal.”

    As The Canary reported at the time, “the government made similar claims about the people it was deporting being criminals. But MPs and campaigners disputed this. One example is the case of Osime Brown. The Home Office had been trying to deport him. A petition to stop his deportation said: Brown is 22 years old, he is profoundly autistic and developmentally younger than his peers. Osime is also learning disabled, dyslexic and due to his time in care has since been diagnosed with PTSD, and suffers with depression. Osime was jailed in 2018 over the theft of a phone in a street robbery, despite a witness for the defence stating Osime had not taken the phone and had in fact asked the other teens carrying out the robbery to stop. He got 5 year’s in prison under the Joint Enterprise Law, it was also ordered that upon his release he be taken to a detention centre and be deported to Jamaica.”

    The Canary report that, “As a result of this campaign and an appeal by his solicitor’s Osime was not taken to the detention centre upon his release due to his ill health, he is now home, yet still awaits deportation. People on February’s flight had also previously been convicted under the Joint Enterprise Law. It allowed judges to convict people of crimes such as murder. The rule was used in situations where someone was involved, but did not actually kill the victim. As the Guardian reported, in 2016, the Supreme Court said that judges had been ‘wrongly interpreting’ the law. This has led to people raising questions about a number of convictions using the rule. But what’s also of concern is something the Gleaner reported. It said that: It is believed that several of the people to be deported had a stay granted at the last minute from a charter flight earlier this year. Back in February, the Home Office was originally going to deport around 50 people to Jamaica. But after campaigns and legal interventions, the flight ended up having 17 people on it.”

    The Canary reveal that, “BBC News said that court orders had stopped the Home Office deporting 25 others. So, it seems that this was just a brief period of respite for these people. Campaigners will be hopeful that the same outcry that was seen in February may halt the 2 December flight. But it’s of major concern that the government feels it can once again attempt to deport people who a court said couldn’t be deported earlier this year.” The Canary warn that, “given Boris Johnson’s support for home secretary Patel, despite the recent outcry over her alleged behaviour, it is unlikely the Home Office will back down. So it’s crucial as many people get involved to try and stop this deportation as possible.” The Canary ask people to get involved and offer a couple of possible interventions: Sign the Petition to stop the deportation flight; Also, Sign the Petition in support of Osime Brown.” The law that renders citizenship ‘conditional’ on good behaviour is fundamentally wrong.

    In the UK it seems that there is one law for the masses, but quite another set of rules to protect the privileged. Even within the general population there are unacceptable variances based on race that we must work hard to eliminate. As we careen towards crash-out Brexit we get ever closer to the dangerous dystopian nightmare Tory Dictatorship that could take decades to overthrow. The Covert 2019 Rigged Election gifted this Tory Government a huge mandate to solidify their oppression over the people of the UK. It is still not too late to fight-back, demand justice and accountability; we could totally derail the Tory project by demanding a full Investigation of last December’s vote. We cannot allow the Tory corruption to continue unabated and that requires forming a viable robust opposition under a strong trustworthy Labour Leader: the Tory Trojan horse needs ousting ASAP. Patel must go, but I really doubt that Cummings has genuinely gone; we must keep intense pressure up on Johnson to “take out the trash!” DO NOT MOVE ON!

    #62586 Reply
    Kim Sanders-Fisher

    We cannot continue ignoring the rule of law and allowing this rogue Tory Government to run roughshod over centuries of cordial and diplomatic convention. They have reinvented UK law in an undemocratic and authoritarian way creating severe hardship for many UK citizens. In the Byline Times Article entitled, “Boris Johnson Politicised the Ministerial Code in 2019 Now, Anything Goes,” Leighton Andrews explains why “the lack of action over the Home Secretary’s bullying was set up in advance through the Government’s ideological fixation on Brexit and assault on the rule of law. The foreword to the Ministerial Code written by Boris Johnson in August 2019 gives the full context of why the Home Secretary Priti Patel was allowed to stay in the Cabinet. Its opening sentence reads: The mission of this Government is to deliver Brexit on 31st October for the purpose of uniting and re-energising our whole United Kingdom and making this country the greatest place on earth.”

    Andrews explains how, “The Government may have failed its 31 October mission, but the Brexit context is everything. Later on, the Prime Minister’s Foreword states: Crucially, there must be no delay – and no misuse of process or procedure by any individual Minister that would seek to stall the collective decisions necessary to deliver Brexit and secure the wider changes needed across our United Kingdom. This is the Ministerial Code used as a weapon in the culture war. Everything, including standards in government, is seen through the Brexit lens. Brexiteers like Patel are safe. The mission to deliver Brexit overrides what we had come to understand were the acceptable standards of public life. Awkwardly, the Prime Minister’s Foreword also states: There must be no bullying and no harassment; no leaking; no breach of collective responsibility. No misuse of taxpayer money and no actual or perceived conflicts of interest.”

    Andrews points out that, “Bullying, leaking, misuse of taxpayers’ money: well, all those have been evident. The Prime Minister has contradicted his independent advisor on the bullying issue; two of the alleged chief leakers have departed; the National Audit Office has produced a scathing report on the separate high-priority channel for friends of MPs and Ministers to win Covid procurement contracts at a high cost to the taxpayer. But no matter, if you’re a Brexiter. The PM will get his mates to form a square around you – a much better defence than the ‘protective ring’ Matt Hancock claimed had been thrown around care homes.” These facts are sickening but true.

    Andrews describes, “The Assault on the Rule of Law,” how, “Boris Johnson has never believed that the rules apply to him. He is the first Prime Minister to have been censured by both the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments and the Parliamentary Standards Commissioner for breaking the rules. In his first few weeks, he sought a prorogation of Parliament subsequently judged illegal by the Supreme Court. His Internal Market Bill breaks international law ‘in a limited and specific way’. Johnson’s rule-breaking is a policy, not an accident. In a system where so many of the rules rest on unwritten consensus on norms and behaviours, Johnson tests what he can get away with. And his adherents want more. The think-tank Policy Exchange, some of whose authors have been keen to stress their role in writing last year’s Conservative manifesto, has been developing proposals for a radical constitutional re-ordering.”

    Andrews also outlines what he refers to as, “The propose re-branding the Supreme Court as an Upper Court of Appeal, essentially nullifying its role as a constitutional court, strengthening ministerial oversight of judicial appointments and limiting judicial review, the re-establishment of Parliamentary sovereignty but with the executive’s powers reinforced, limits on the Human Rights Act and on the application of the European Convention on Human Rights, and the politicization of public appointments, something the Commissioner on Public Appointments, the respected former political editor Peter Riddell, has warned about. The Queen’s Speech announced a Constitution, Democracy and Human Rights commission whose members, says Policy Exchange, must be ‘united by a shared appreciation of the UK’s traditional constitution’. Since we are not yet a hundred years form the establishment of the Irish Free State, it’s not entirely clear what that ‘traditional constitution’ might mean.”

    Andrews cynically points out that, “this is an agenda based on the notion of ‘the will of the people’, enshrined in the Ministerial Code as the mission to deliver Brexit.” While this agenda might sound democratic, “If Johnson gets his way, we can expect it to be implemented ruthlessly, just as the majoritarian vote in the referendum was used ruthlessly to remove a variety of citizenship rights from UK citizens, and as ruthlessly as dissident long-standing Conservatives were thrown overboard for their summer rebellion last year.” Andrews talks of an “Office of Government Ethics.” He says, “We’ve had twenty-five years since Lord Nolan’s report on public standards was adopted. The Nolan rules depended on a shared political consensus about the norms which underpin standards in public life and a media that endorsed those standards and ways of operating and refused to downplay breaches of norms simply because the politician affected shared their views on a particular issue.”

    Andrews asserts that, “In the UK today, attitudes to Brexit determine attitudes to political norms, and the Ministerial Code is simply a weapon in the culture war. The Nolan rules, in the jargon of today, need a reset, and they need statutory underpinning. We need an Office of Government Ethics, properly resourced, staffed and empowered, accountable to Parliament not Government, in place of the advisory bodies and rules which have been ignored or shredded by the Prime Minister. But don’t hold your breath.” Byline Times say of the author, “Leighton Andrews is Professor of Public Leadership at Cardiff Business School and a former Welsh Government minister.”

    Ignoring the Ministerial code to rescue Priti Patel from the embarrassment of being forced out of yet another Ministerial brief that she should obviously never have been trusted with in the first place, is the new normal for this zero accountability corrupt Tory Government under Boris Johnson. When his Chief Adviser Dominic Cummings blatantly ignored and disobeyed the lockdown restrictions earlier in the year Johnson refused to fire him, constructing a unique opt-out to justify the Herd Nerd’s selfish, arrogant behaviour. Because the Labour Opposition has been reduced to a pathetic Tory enablement Party the Captain of Capitulation, Keir Starmer, failed to demand the vital resignation so Cummings stayed in place. Each time Johnson takes a more outrageous stand on behalf of his disreputable team and gets away with it, he is emboldened to bend the rules even further. Labour need to remove the worthless Tory Trojan horse whose feeble excuse for leadership is destroying the progressive Left0wing of the Party.

    However, even Cummings’s highly demonstrative ‘exit with box’ doesn’t convince me that the Dom has been critically excised from his powerful position in control of this alt-right Tory Government. Captured on front pages and in annoyingly repetitive televised reruns of him striding off into the night carrying a seemingly weightless cardboard box, were staged to grab our attention. This was amateur dramatics at its most corny, probably mutually agreed between the two men as the next strategy move to fool the British public into believing there would be a ‘reset.’ It would detract from the impending Brexit disaster and give the EU team the false impression the negotiation might change, when all that was really intended was a postponement of the pre-planned inevitable crash-out without a deal with the EU demonized for sticking to their reasonable demands. The Brexit disaster is about to blow wide open plus the shocking corruption and exploitation of the Covid crisis is being exposed; Johnson is desperate for distractions!

    It was good timing for Cummings to go underground, ostensibly to tie up a few loose ends working from home, but he is way too quiet to have actually left. The Canary Article entitled “Government blocked paper questioning accuracy of Cummings’ Coronavirus project, show leaked emails” exposes the corrupt antics of this out of control Tory miscreant. They say “An article in the prestigious British Medical Journal (BMJ) claims that leaked emails show the health department blocked a paper about a study that raised questions concerning the accuracy of the Coronavirus (Covid-19) antibody test kit. The kit – known as AbC-19 – comes under the ‘Operation Moonshot’ umbrella. In September, UK prime minister Boris Johnson announced a new project, Operation Moonshot, which he explained would use testing so as to: identify people who are negative – who don’t have coronavirus and who are not infectious – so we can allow them to behave in a more normal way, in the knowledge they cannot infect anyone else with the virus.”

    Keeping the brolly up no one was going to rain on Johnson’s parade.
    The Canary report on a “blocked publication” saying that, “On 11 November, a paper was published in the BMJ regarding a study ‘funded and implemented by Public Health England, supported by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Clinical Research Network (CRN) Portfolio. The paper’s authors were affiliated with Public Health England (PHE) and the universities of Bristol, Warwick, and Cambridge. The study examined the accuracy of the rapid antibody testing programme for 4,842 key workers. The paper concluded that based on the assumption that 10% of the tested population have had the SARS-CoV-2 (Covid-19) infection, ‘around one in five key workers testing positive with AbC-19 would be false positives.; It added: If the AbC-19 test were to be used for mass population screening in a relatively low prevalence setting, we would anticipate a large number of false positive results (for example, 18 900 for every 1 million tests carried out).”

    However, the Canary say that, “it’s been reported by Stephen Armstrong, another BMJ journalist, that publication of the preprint of the paper, which is yet to be peer reviewed, was blocked by the government. Also, the BMJ has seen emails, dating back to September, that show ‘officials at the [Department of Health and Social Care] knew about the disappointing results of the PHE study before the announcement [of purchasing one million AbC-19 tests]’. One of the emails, from the Department of Health, stated that all key figures in government – meaning ministers, special advisers, and 10 Downing Street – were ‘aligned’ in blocking the publication.” We should ask why? It is so obvious with huge sums of public money being squandered. They say, “In a November 17 article in the BMJ, journalist Gareth Iacobucci referred to a ‘major expansion’ of Operation Moonshot’s mass testing programme, utilising lateral flow tests. He added how these ‘rapid diagnostic tests’ are designed to provide results in 10-30 minutes.”

    But the Canary reveal, “Iacobucci also reported that Jon Deeks, professor of biostatistics at Birmingham University, commented how: The poor detection rate of the [lateral flow] test makes it entirely unsuitable for the government’s claim that it will allow the safe ‘test and release’ of people from lockdown and students from university. When queried if the test meant it would be safe for people to visit their families over Christmas, Deeks told iNews: ‘We would end up with 400,000 people in the country getting false positive results. So their Christmas would then be in lockdown wrongly’. Clinical scientist Dipender Gill and clinical immunologist Mark J Ponsfield even referred to possible ‘societal harm’ arising from the tests: The risk of false positives is particularly concerning. If antibody responses are used as an indicator of immunity, for example, test results may influence both individual and government decisions about permissible risk of exposure, and false positives may therefore do considerable societal harm.”

    The Canary report that, “In another BMJ article Bing Jones, former associate specialist in haematology, Sheffield; Jack Czauderna, former GP Sheffield; and Paul Redgrave, former director of public health, Sheffield, described the government’s Test and Trace programme as a ‘lethal mistake’. They suggest that ‘the media and our profession appear complicit in allowing systematic misinformation, egregious miscalculation, delay, and diversion of public funds, to benefit private companies’.” It is not like the public are unaware of this exploitation and misuse of public funds, but every step of the way the Tories get away with their continued corruption. They add: “The national Test and Trace is a disaster. Its design means that it cannot possibly contain outbreaks of covid-19. It is obsessed with testing at the expense of all the other necessary links in the chain of actions needed to control outbreaks. It fails to detect asymptomatic people and those who are unwilling or unable to be tested and it ignores false negatives.”

    Reiterating the major change of policy being strongly demanded by experts and local authorities all over the UK, the Canary say that, “Instead, they advocate that: The privatised national Test and Trace system must be brought back under the control of the NHS and local public health experts with support from general practice as outlined by Independent Sage. Assessment of patients prior to and after testing by professionals, must be put in place. Primary care is best placed to provide this. Describing what they call “The Cummings effect” they say that, “The leaked emails show that PHE first raised with the government the problem of inaccuracies regarding antibody testing in September. But the government blocked the paper that reported on the PHE-led study.”

    The Canary reveal that, “The following month, the government announced that a £75m contract for one million antibody tests had been awarded to Abingdon Health. A further £10m was awarded to Abingdon Health for ‘components and materials’ in regard to Covid-19 ‘lateral flow’ tests. A judicial review of the Abingdon Health awards has now been requested by the Good Law Project (GLP). GLP has also commenced judicial review proceedings against Operation Moonshot, which will be overseen by Dominic Cummings while working from his home.” As I said was never fooled by that very public exit from the front door of Number 10, Cummings storming out with his cardboard box to signal a departure and drastic change of pace for the PM. This was all ‘made for TV’ theatrics with the real agenda to doggedly carry on as before with the Dom not quite as prominent as before, but still pulling all the strings. The exposure of this corruption should signal the final dismantling of the Dom’s power, but will it?

    On a more expansive Tory exploitation of the Covid crisis and generalized Conservative corruption front, it’ has been reported by the Canary that, “another legal challenge has been launched, claiming that ‘prime minister Boris Johnson and health secretary Matt Hancock acted ‘unlawfully’ when appointing key figures to top posts during the coronavirus crisis’. The figures referred to are: ‘test and trace boss and Tory peer Baroness Dido Harding; Kate Bingham, head of the UK’s vaccine taskforce; and Mike Coupe, director of NHS Test and Trace’.” What is more to the point at this stage is to determine if this corrupt Tory Government have ever managed, quite by accident, to adhere to public and legal obligations by on any occasion not overriding centuries of convention or outright breaking the law. The Canary say, “It’s all about transparency, or lack of it, and how science is being ignored by a government that continues to be chaotic in how it responds to the pandemic and its effects on peoples’ lives and livelihoods.”

    Exploring this issue further, a Canary Article entitled, “Legal challenge launched over ‘unlawful’ Government Covid appointments,” uncovers more damning evidence. They say that, “Campaigners have submitted a legal challenge alleging that prime minister Boris Johnson and health secretary Matt Hancock acted ‘unlawfully’ when appointing key figures to top posts during the coronavirus crisis, it has been reported. The Observer said that the case had been lodged jointly by the Good Law Project and race equality think tank the Runnymede Trust. It said that the judicial review, submitted to the High Court, alleged that three appointments were made without advertising the positions and without the open competition normally required for senior public sector roles.”

    This story is seeping into the news despite Media efforts to drown it out with more irrelevant ‘hanyfloss’ obsessively focused on Labour infighting and the typhoon in a teaspoon of their disproportionate Labour Party naval gazing over fantisemitism. The Canary wisely highlight the important campaign quoting the public service objective that the ‘Good Law Project’ intend to prove it in court. They say that “The case relates to the recruitment of test and trace boss and Tory peer Baroness Dido Harding; Kate Bingham, head of the UK’s vaccine taskforce; and Mike Coupe, director of NHS Test and Trace.” Jolyon Maugham QC, director of the Good Law Project, said on social media: “This is our belief, that cronyism – which undermines the public interest, discriminates against those who don’t rub shoulders with cabinet ministers, and shuts out those who lack the family fortune to work unpaid – is unlawful.” He said “we at @GoodLawProject mean to prove it in court.”

    The Canary say, “Mr Maughan said that the organisation will publish the full court documents on Sunday. A No 10 spokesman said: ‘We do not comment on ongoing legal proceedings.’ The Good Law Project and Runnymede Trust’s crowding funding page said that Lady Harding was just ‘handed the job’ as head of the National Institute for Health Protection without any other candidates being considered. It said that she was not the only one to land a top job this way and that ‘very often’ people who had been recruited had ‘personal and political connections to the government’. It said: ‘In August, the Conservative peer Dido Harding was appointed as head of the National Institute for Health Protection. ‘The wife of a Conservative MP and friend of former prime minister David Cameron, Dido Harding didn’t pip other candidates to the post at the interview. ‘There weren’t any other candidates. She was just handed the job.”

    The ‘Chumocracy’ as it has become known has reached an obscene level under this Tory Government as ‘Tallyho Herding’ is certainly “not the only one to land a top job this way.” The Canary report that, “Each week it seems another individual secures a role of vital public importance without any advertisement or fair process – and very often that individual has personal and political connections to Government. This Government’s approach discriminates against those born without a silver spoon in their mouth. It’s unfair to those who don’t rub shoulders with high-ranking Ministers and it’s unfair to groups who the data shows are shut out of public life. Appointing your mates to top jobs isn’t new or the preserve of the Conservative Party: we all remember ‘Tony’s Cronies’ too, but it’s high time we put a stop to it.” They say that, “Runnymede Trust and Good Law Project are challenging the appointment of Dido Harding, as well as a string of other appointments which were made with seemingly no advertisement or fair recruitment process.”

    Changeling the lies fermented by the Tory right is vital. Starmer would prefer to ignore all of the heckles from the gallery getting louder and louder as the Labour PLP try to distance themselves from the reality of overwhelming support for Jeremy Corbyn and the progressive Left policies that he championed, but the Socialist genie is out if the bottle! The giant fantisemitism ‘Typhoon in a Teaspoon’ has marginalized other ethnic groups as unimportant and not just the persecuted Palestinians. Political Parties in the UK of all stripes, cannot be coerced into policy decisions to suit the dictates of any foreign power, but that is the known objective of the Israeli Lobby The death of democracy in the UK poses a massive threat to all minorities in this country as an increasingly unpopular Tory Government will be looking for scapegoats to demonize to obscure major policy failures. We must challenge the Covert 2019 Rigged Election and demand a full Investigation of the result; a goal not considered at the time due to media bias! DO NOT MOVE ON!

    #62611 Reply
    Kim Sanders-Fisher

    Jo Coburn announced. “Live in Westminster as the Chancellor gets set to reveal his Spending Review” it was a special Politics Live program to span Prime Minister’s Questions and Rishi Sunak’s presentation with a rebuttal from Labour’s Anneliese Dodds. I was pleasantly shocked to see an unusually well balanced line up of guests that included Tory former Chief Whip Mark Harper, Miatta Fahnbullah, Chief Executive of the left of centre think-tank the New Economic Foundation, Labour MP Richard Burgon and Katie Balls of the Spectator. For once the studio wasn’t heavily stacked in favour of bolstering the Tory hard right with well to the right of centre Labour representatives. Coburn said, “Billions promised to protect jobs and bolster the NHS, but Rishi Sunak is expected to cut International Aid and freeze public sector pay as the true scale of Pandemic fuelled Government borrowing is revealed. The Chancellors statement, live at 12:30 with reaction from across the political spectrum and from our experts here in the studio.”

    Coburn said this would be presented “alongside the Forecast for Budget Responsibility they will show the scale and the impact of the pandemic had on our economy and they make for a sobering read. We don’t have the precise figures yet but we will shortly but borrowing figures are said to be at the highest level since the Second World War.” Turning to Tory MP Harper she asked, “Could that have been avoided Mark?” Harper responded, “Well I don’t, I think it’s been very consistent around the world and I don’t think it could be… but I mean it does set a very difficult backdrop for this Spending Review.” He went on to talk up the Chancellor and “his fantastic team at the treasury” who he claimed had “done a really good job setting up the furlough scheme to minimize the impact of Coronavirus…” But hang on a minute; furlough was the result of massive coercion from Labour MPs and the Unions!

    Harper continued, “They are going to be facing some incredibly difficult decisions across the piece for frankly many years to come and were all going to have to make some very difficult decisions in Parliament.” Difficult for whom? I doubt the wealthy Tory elite will be impacted. Coburn cited, the “figures talked about 370 perhaps 400 Billion pounds in terms if borrowing, Miatta could that figure have been avoided?” Fahnbullah didn’t think so, “Because the other side of the equation is that we are in an economic crisis where the economy has contracted by 10 or 11%; the biggest contraction for 300 years, so it is unprecedented. The Government had to act to bolster the economy. The key question though is not the size of the overall deficit it’s the cost of financing that deficit which is at historical lows because interest rates are at historical lows. Actually we need to think of the sustainability of the debt rather than the big number because that will really five us a proper picture of what it is the Chancellor will have to contend with.”

    Miatta Fahnbullah is a really articulate presenter and she made a extremely important point coming from the perspective of a Left leaning think-tank who have long recognized the error of the swinging Tory cuts. The low cost of borrowing has been the case for quite some time, but the Tories ignored the low interest rates and the golden opportunity to invest in infrastructure and job creation, instead implementing a decade of ideologically driven Tory austerity misery that hollowed out public services and left us brutally ill equipped to deal with this crisis. Any business person worth their salt will tell you that, “you have to spend money to make money,” but when they should have invested in building thousands of desperately needed council homes to provide a guaranteed return on investment in affordable rent, they sold off existing stock to housing market profiteers. Instead of rapidly paying down the deficit the Government saw its revenue decrease as the general public had no spare cash to spend. Now Tories want to repeat that hardship.

    Jo Coburn turned to Katie Balls asking, “what’s your view?” Balls reply was going to offer zero relief for the Tory MP who drew the short straw on who would agree to appear on Politics Live. He must have wished he had been told to self-isolate and avoid all electronic devises for health reasons; it was easy to swing that kind of last ditch BS if Johnson was on side, but today he was the sacrificial Tory MP! Balls said that, “I think there’s a sense in the treasury, that when it comes to the Spending Review, one of the bigger stories is actually not going to be anything that Rishi Sunak announces, so much as a snapshot of the dire state the UK economy is in. I think in terms of what Rishi Sunak could have done differently, I think what you are going to hear from opposition politicians is not what is this figure, but has all that money been spent wisely? Has some of that money been badly used? Could it have been used elsewhere and I think that’s the more likely attack we are going to hear in how the treasury acted through this.” Ouch!

    So then Coburn asks, “Richard Burgon do you agree with that? What is your view on the figures we are probably going to see today from the Office of Budgetary Responsibility about the state of the public finances?” Burgon replied, “Well with the hardest hit economy in the G7 that wasn’t inevitable. I think one of the reasons is the Government’s disastrous mishandling of the Caronavirus. This has meant that our economy has been hit harder than others.” But his next comment really hit home as he said, “But, when I hear Mark talk about tough choices, that’s a familiar mantra from the Conservatives. That means rich Conservatives like Rishi Sunak, I think one of the richest MPs in Parliament will be calling for a pay freeze for the very same workers that they applauded; it will be tough times ahead for the workers who have kept our society going during this pandemic. It’s similar language from the Conservatives it’s not a tough choice, that’s an easy choice made by the powerful.”

    Why can’t we see this bold opposition confidence in our Labour Leadership? Why isn’t Keir Starmer ranting in outrage about the gross injustice of yet another hit on the working poor. No, the Captain of Capitulation is too busy trying to tear the Labour Party to shreds to placate the Jewish Lobby and the BoD. Keir Starmer is eager to prove that he’s the man and his “New Leadership” will take the once progressive inspirational Party on a permanent lurch to the right, even if the members desert in droves. If we had only challenged to result of the Covert 2019 Rigged Election a full Investigation might have exposed Tory corruption and Corbyn would be in Number 10 dealing with this crisis in a humane way to protect the most vulnerable. Right now we do not consistently have robust opposition. But Richard Burgon vigorously attacked the Tory stance, “They make it time and time again, you say it’s tough, but it’s not tough for them, it’s tough for the type of people and communities we should be seeking to represent.”

    “Mark do you want to…”I would have said scrape yourself out of the sewer to answer that one, but Coburn was far more polite with her ask. The far right will cry foul; it was so unfair to pit three intelligent left-leaning guests against one truly hapless Tory. The result was a sublimely scathing attack on a rabid Tory; just an unheard of abuse of counter-equality conventions! A pathetic Tory MP finally discovers that it is not so cool when you are on the receiving end of a concerted attack, especially when it turns out to be 100% totally well justified! The discussion focused on what had been trailed as the expected spending announcements. Before the decisions about how the Tories would set about paying down the debt racked up during the Covid crisis there was a well deserved attack on the value for money of public spending so far. With the standard BBC stacking of invited guests to support the Tory cause a lot less evident today, Harper must have felt distinctly uncomfortable as outspoken Labour MP Richard Bergen weighed in.

    But tin-eared and indignant Harpon responded, “I think Richards approach to the world was tested with the voters in December with Jeremy Corbyn and the voters said they didn’t want that,” he said “they rumbled him,” he said. No, I thought, you cheated to steal the vote I say in referring to the Covert 2019 Rigged Election. Sure the country really wanted another decade of misery and exploitation under Tory austerity. We were all so thoroughly convinced that your Tory ‘landslide victory’ was legit; now we are just ecstatic dealing with the deadly consequences! Regarding the stolen vote Harpen says that, “They made the decision to put us in power with a significant majority so I think that argument was had. This is about how you deal with going forward,” right as you hastily ditch all of the fake pledges you made pre election. Harper continued the Tory spin, “I think the key thing for the Chancellor is how do we get the economy to grow next year when hopefully we’ve been able to rollout a new vaccine.”

    Without the interruption reserved for Labour MPs and the progressive Left, Harper drivelled on, “What policies to we put in place for growth that’s the best way of dealing with this. But I’m afraid I thing we are going to have some difficult choices. I think the public understand that.” Sure they do, we all know under the Tories, who will be forced to pay… “The public understand that you’ve got to balance the budget in the medium term not straight away that’s not the time to do it as Miatta said borrowing costs are very low so at the moment the importance is about dealing with the emergency.” Strange how this NEVER includes a tax on the wealthy! He said, “I think that’s what we will hear from the Chancellor today but I mean there are tougher choices in life everybody knows that and they want a Government that is going to be level with them set the choices out and set out that view so we can grow the economy, protect jobs and give everyone the best chances in life and I think that’s what the Chancellor’s going to set out today.”

    While the Tories shamelessly continue their relentless spin about ‘levelling up’ they are getting set to bleed the working poor dry yet again as they continue their ingrained policy of endless exploitation. Strong, outspoken Labour MPs like Richard Bergen must call them out over this blatant lie and change the narrative in the Media to point out the ‘decimating down’ and the continuation of austerity. Coburn didn’t challenge the sheer hypocrisy of Harper’s ridiculous assertions she just moved on. “Well let’s concentrate on the figures just for a moment and what were expecting from Paul Johnson from the Institute for Fiscal Studies. Just set out for us Paul what you think and perhaps the difference between what was predicted or forecast earlier in the year and now.” The outlook was grim, but the inevitable looming catastrophe of crash-out Brexit barely got a mention. There is still this totally ludicrous exceptionalist assumption that the EU will finally capitulate to Tory demands at the last ditch, so it is taken as a given.

    When Harper came under fire over the Tories reckless squandering of public money, shovelling money out the door to Tory chums with zero accountability, it was fiercely defended as efficiency in an emergency, spending “at pace” to meet the immediate needs. Never mind how ill prepared the UK was despite ample warning before things escalated here. Harper tossed in that favourite Tory phrase. “in the round” meaning occasionally they got things right purely by chance. Coburn asked SNP Alison Thewliss MP what she expected to hear from the Chancellor today? She said, “where’re hoping to see continued investment in the economy…”

    Tory MP Mark Harper, was keen to offer weasel words and lame excuses for callously cruel and downright mean Tory policy, past and present, when under attack as a guest on Politics Live earlier today. When questioned about his response to the EHRC criticism of the Tories ongoing immigration catastrophe over the Windrush scandal, he repeatedly tried to justify what he referred to as ‘mistakes’ by citing the need to remove illegal immigrants. His unjustified comments reinforced the vile Tory policy of treating as many of the Windrush generation as possible as criminally illegal and subject to deportation. This placed an onerous burden on many people who had lived in the UK, worked hard and paid taxes for decades; if they failed to produce massive quantities of continuous documentation, they were forced into destitution or shipped out. Harper was heavily implicated due to his role at the time, but he was unfazed by the racist ‘go home vans’ which he appeared to defend in a disgraceful display of Tory inhumanity.

    “The suffering of the Windrush generation the Equalities and Human Rights Commission says it was a shameful stain on British history.” Jo Coburn said quoting a section from the just published EHRC Review which accuses the Tory Government at the time of “acting unlawfully.” It said that the Government had “ignored warnings that those changes to immigration laws would create serious injustices” so she asked Mark Harper, who was a former Immigration Minister back then, “Did you behave unlawfully?” In denial as he claimed a convenient case of amnesia he replied, “I can’t recall any warnings about the specific group of individuals and I wasn’t interviewed by Wendy Williams, she didn’t want to interview me for her report,” he said. In a sickeningly dismissive way he added, “but clearly things didn’t work as well as they should have done… and I think all of us…” Stunned, Coburn cut in with, “Well it was more than that!” Hundreds of people suffered due to Tory cruelty, but most have yet to be compensated.

    As always Coburn couldn’t mention EHRC without zeroing in on Labour MP Richard Burgan over the fantisemitism ‘typhoon in a teaspoon.’ She demanded to know why Corbyn was refusing to grovel, but Burgan did not give in to her badgering to admit any necessity for a Corbyn climb down: I was relieved as Coburn quit trying and it proved appeasement is so unnecessary. Speculation ahead of Rishi Sunak’s Spending Review, fuelled an Independent Article entitled, “Matt Hancock refuses to say whether he will take MPs’ £3,000 salary rise during public sector pay freeze,” but answer came their none. They say that the, “Health Secretary asked six times, Matt Hancock has refused to say whether he will accept a planned pay rise for MPs while the government freezes pay for other public sector workers. Asked six times on ITV’s Good Morning Britain programme, the health secretary said MPs’ pay was ‘set independently’ and that he would not try to influence it, even to stop it going up.”

    The Independent reports that, “It comes ahead of an announcement by the chancellor that all workers in the public sector outside the NHS will have their pay frozen, among other austerity measures like a cut to the international aid budget. “The chancellor is going to set out the policy on Wednesday, the independent body on MPs’ pay will then set out its final policy, I’m sure that it will take into account all these things,” Mr Hancock told the programme. “The reason I’m not answering the question, tempting as it is, is because I think these things should be done the proper way – and I have never set my pay, even to say it should be frozen.” Sure MPs can’t help it if an independent body want to force them to take higher pay than the need of deserve. This is a truly ridiculous argument, because if the Government chose to suspend that independent body for the next three years, while allowing the UK economy to make a full recovery, that would be entirely feasible; they just choose not to do so.

    The Independent say, “Pressed again and again on the issue, Mr Hancock said: ‘I’ll promise to come back onto this programme immediately after this decision comes through and I’ll let you know.’ The Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA), which sets MPs’ pay, is expected to recommend a £3,360 pay rise for all MPs, to £85,291. The body is independent of MPs and its rises are technically automatic, though some politicians simply give pay rises they consider unfair to charity. Despite MPs’ claims that they have no influence over IPSA, the body could be disestablished by parliament, which set it up and is sovereign over the UK. Ministerial salaries, which government ministers get on top of their MP salary, are expected to be frozen in the coming year, as they have been since 2010. However ministers would still get the 4.1 per cent hike to their MPs’ salary, which is separate.”

    Early on in the Pandemic MPs received a similar above inflation pay rise. Then they awarded themselves an extra £10,000 just to help cover the extra hardship of… functioning as an MP during Covid; although I am not quite sure how this money was justified. The Queen took an unexpected hit to her property revenue, but the Government decided to cover the shortfall as, well we couldn’t have the monarch going short of a few million just because the country is in a crisis. But on the other end of the scale, it took the highly publicized rant of a popular footballer begging on behalf of the poorest children in the country to secure meals so they didn’t starve. Now the UK has decided to reduce its commitment to Foreign Aid; that might mean the difference between life and death for the poorest citizens of the world. But the tiniest tax increase for the wealthy elite is out of the question; I don’t know how they can live with their obscenely selfish greed. Today was a day when I felt deeply ashamed to be British; we need the toxic Tories out ASAP! DO NOT MOVE ON!

    #62623 Reply

    On the subject of the reviews body. When in the past the review bodies recommended higher pays than the government wished to pay, the government insisted either that this is not applied or if applied had to come from internal savings in the NHS and other public bodies. Often the government of the day also make it clear that they will not honour pay reviews outside set parameters. So much for independent pay reviews.
    As for the pandemic and the crisis. Note that the pandemic is hitting the neoliberal capitalist societies and their acolytes the hardest. Other countries with vestiges or more overt socialism are faring much better, especially when the population feels that governments are working for them, But in the case of the greedy Tories we are some of the worst. I content that when it comes to dealing with national and international disasters there is no capitalist neoliberal solution, only a socialist one.

    #62653 Reply
    Kim Sanders-Fisher

    Boris Johnson boomed from his remote screen: “Good morning, Mr Speaker. I hope very much that our connection works today. This is my last day of virtual meetings with ministerial colleagues and others before I come out of isolation. In addition to my virtual meetings and duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings later today.” Tory MP Mr Robertson asked, “Can the Prime Minister guarantee that in any agreement that he reaches with the European Union, British sovereignty will be protected for the whole United Kingdom and that the UK will exit the transition period on 31 December as a whole?” The Prime Minister, “Yes, indeed; I can make that guarantee. Our position on fish has not changed. We will only be able to make progress if the EU accepts the reality that we must be able to control access to our waters. It is very important at this stage to emphasise that.” Just over a month to go till crash-out and the Titanic Brexit iceberg still looms large!

    Despite virtually ignoring Cummings’s violation of lockdown, Keir Starmer took solid aim at the latest Tory abuse of power, “Today is International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women and Girls. On average, a woman is killed by a man every three days in this country. It is a shocking statistic; and, sadly, the pandemic has seen a significant increase in domestic abuse. I will join those marking this day, and I am sure that the whole House would agree that we need to do far more to end domestic violence. The Prime Minister may remember that in August last year, he wrote the foreword to the ministerial code. It says: ‘There must be no bullying…no harassment; no leaking… No misuse of taxpayer money…no actual or perceived conflicts of interest.’ That is five promises in two sentences. How many of those promises does the Prime Minister think his Ministers have kept?”

    The Prime Minister said, “I believe that the Ministers of this Government are working hard and overall doing an outstanding job in delivering the people’s priorities, and that is what we will continue to do. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman waits a little bit longer today, he will hear some of the ways in which this Government are going to take this country forward, with one of the most ambitious programmes of investment in infrastructure, schools and hospitals for generations. If he wants to make any particular allegations about individual Ministers or their conduct, he is welcome to do so. The floor is his.” Did he fail to note Patel’s conduct?

    Starmer replied, “I did not really hear an answer there, so why don’t we go through these commitments in turn, starting with bullying and harassment? The now former independent adviser on ministerial standards concluded that the Home Secretary’s behaviour was, in his words, ‘in breach of the Ministerial Code’, and, he said, ’can be described as bullying’, which means: ‘intimidating or insulting behaviour that makes an individual feel uncomfortable, frightened, less respected or put down.’ What message does the Prime Minister think it sends that the independent adviser on standards has resigned but the Home Secretary is still in post?”

    Johnson acted as if the matter was beyond his control, bleated that Patel had apologized he said, “Sir Alex’s decisions are entirely a matter for him, but the Home Secretary has apologised for any way in which her conduct fell short. Frankly, I make no apology for sticking up for and standing by a Home Secretary who, as I said just now, is getting on with delivering on the people’s priorities: putting, already, 6,000 of the 20,000 more police out on the streets to fight crime and instituting, in the teeth of very considerable resistance, a new Australian-style points-based immigration system. She is getting on with delivering what I think the people of this country want. She is showing a steely determination, and I think that is probably why the Opposition continue to bash her.”

    Starmer hit back saying, “The reality is that any other Prime Minister would have fired the Home Secretary and any other Home Secretary would have resigned, so I think we will chalk that up as one broken promise.” That is one with honour and decency would have resigned, so not Patel. He resumed, “On to the next: no leaking. Over the summer, we saw repeated leaks about which areas would go into restrictions. The Prime Minister’s plans to go into a second national lockdown were leaked all over the national papers, resulting in a truly chaotic press conference, and we have seen more leaking in the past 24 hours. This serial leaking is causing huge anxiety to millions of people about what is going to happen next. I know there is supposed to be an inquiry under way, but can the Prime Minister tell us, is he any closer to working out who in his Government is leaking this vital information?”

    Johnson replied, “I have already told you, Mr Speaker, that as soon as we have any information about anybody leaking, we will bring it to the House. But I may say that I think the right hon. and learned Gentleman is really concentrating on trivia when what the people of this country want is to see his support, and the support of politicians across the House, for the tough measures that we are putting in to defeat coronavirus. He makes various attacks on, I think, my leadership and handling of the ministerial code. I would take them a lot more seriously, frankly, if the Leader of the Opposition could explain why the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) is still a member of the Labour party. Does he support the right hon. Gentleman’s continued membership of the Labour party—yes or no? Why doesn’t he answer that question?”

    He was doing it again, that annoying habit of turning the focus back on the questioner, but the Speaker caught him short with a curt reminder, “I think I will just answer that with the fact that it is actually Prime Minister’s questions, not Leader of the Opposition’s questions.” The PM snapped defensively, “It is a perfectly reasonable question, Mr Speaker.” Hoyle was having none of it he barked, “I think I will make that decision, Prime Minister.” Then he offered a veiled threat that he might resort to the mute button, quipping, “Thankfully we have got the sound—we do not want to lose it…” which drew Laughter from MPs in the Chamber! What a great pity Speaker Hoyle would soon lose that precious curtailment of the PM’s fatuous drivel as he emerges from self-isolation.

    “Thank you, Mr Speaker,” said Starmer, “The difference, of course, is that I am tackling the issues in my party and the Prime Minister is running away from the issues in his. I take it from his answer that he has no idea who is leaking from his Government, so I think we will put that as another one in the ‘no’ column. Moving on, to perhaps the most serious of the promises under the code: no misuse of taxpayers’ money. For weeks, I have raised concerns about the Government’s spraying taxpayers’ money on contracts that do not deliver. The problem is even worse than we thought. This week, a Cabinet Office response suggests that the Government purchased not 50 million unusable items of protective equipment but 180 million, and a new report this morning by the National Audit Office identifies a further set of orders totalling £240 million for face masks for the NHS that it cannot use. So will the Prime Minister come clean: how many hundreds of millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money has been wasted on equipment that cannot be used?”

    Johnson cannot have felt comfortable with this attack, but he could drown out the concern with his standard bragging, “Actually, to answer the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s question directly, 99.5% of the 32 billion items of personal protective equipment that this country secured conformed entirely to our clinical needs, once we had checked it. Of all the pathetic lines of attack that we have heard so far, this is the feeblest, because if you remember, Mr Speaker, we were faced with a national pandemic on a scale that we had not seen before and the Government were being attacked by the Labour party for not moving fast enough to secure PPE. I remember the right hon. and learned Gentleman saying that we needed to unblock the blockages in the system and that we needed to shift heaven and earth to get it done. That is what he said at the beginning of the pandemic. Then he complained that we moved too slow. Now he is saying that we moved too fast. He has got to make up his mind what his attack is”.

    Starmer knew this was a weak spot so he hacked away, responding, “It is obvious that either the Prime Minister does not know how much taxpayers’ money has been wasted, or he does not care. So far, we have bullying, harassment, leaking and the misuse of taxpayers’ money. I must say to the Prime Minister that it is not looking good so far, but let us press on. The next one is ‘no actual or perceived conflict of interest’. Where do I start on this one? Last week, we learned that suppliers with political connections were 10 times more likely to be awarded Government contracts, and this week The Sunday Times reports that the Health Secretary appointed one of his closest friends to a key advisory role. This friend also is a major shareholder, as it happens, in a firm that specialises in lobbying the Government on behalf of its clients, and some of those clients have secured tens of millions of pounds of Government contracts during the pandemic. Was the Prime Minister aware of this apparent conflict of interest?”

    The PM replied, “In so far as there are any conflicts of interest, they will be evident from the publication of all the details of all the contracts. Again, the right hon. and learned Gentleman just seems to be attacking the Government for shifting heaven and earth, as we did, to get the medicines, the PPE, the equipment and the treatments that this country needed. What it reveals really is a deep underlying Labour hatred of the private sector, and it is actually thanks to the private sector and the Government working with the private sector that the UK was able to produce the world’s first usable treatment for the disease in dexamethasone and has worked hard to secure huge numbers of doses of the world’s first usable room-temperature vaccine. That is the private sector working to deliver for the people of this country and it is this common-sense Conservative Government working with the private sector, rather than abominating it and relying exclusively on some deranged form of state control. How else does he think we could possibly have done it?”

    Starmer wanted to draw a shocking contrast, “No one is knocking the private sector; the Government are knocking the taxpayer, and that is not trivial. So I think it is a clean sweep: bullying, harassment, leaking, wasting public money and obvious conflicts of interest. It is the same old story: one rule for the British public and another for the Prime Minister and his friends. Just look at the contrast between his attitude to spraying public money at contracts that do not deliver and his attitude to pay rises for the key workers who kept the country going during this pandemic. If you have a hotline to Ministers, you get a blank cheque, but if you are on the frontline tackling covid, you are picking up the bill. Will the Prime Minister finally get his priorities right, stop wasting taxpayers’ money and give police officers, firefighters, care workers and other key workers the pay rise they so obviously deserve?”

    The PM said, “It is this party and this Government who have given key workers and public sector workers above-inflation pay rises this year, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows, whether that is the police, the Army or nurses, who are now getting 12.6% more than they were three years ago. It is this Government who will continue to increase the living wage, as he will discover if he can just contain his impatience for a few minutes. Indeed, it is this Government who have not only delivered free school meals and a vast increase in spending on development around the world but have looked after the poorest and the neediest. One of the most important facts about the £200 billion coronavirus package of support that the Chancellor has devised for lives and livelihoods across the country is that the benefits overwhelmingly prioritise the poorest and neediest in the country.’ (In Tory marginal’s!) The reason we can do that is because we have a Government who understand how to run a strong economy and who ensure that they take the tough decisions now that will allow our economy to bounce back, that is what this Government are doing.” Total crap!

    The Leader of the SNP, Ian Blackford, focused on the latest source of extreme Tory shame, saying that, “Protecting the foreign aid budget has long been a source of unity and agreement across this House and across the four nations of the United Kingdom. At the last general election, every major party recommitted to that moral mission of helping the world’s poorest and most vulnerable. Indeed, a senior Government Minister said that it ‘paved the way for Britain to meet the UN target of spending 0.7% of national income on aid…and that remains our commitment.’—[Official Report, 16 June 2020; Vol. 677, c. 667.] Does the Prime Minister agree with that senior Government Minister?” Chancellor Sunak had yet to deliver his Spending Review, but this was known.

    The Prime Minister was defensive, signalling the cut was indeed planned, “Mr Speaker, listening to Opposition Members talking about the 0.7% commitment, you would think that they invented it. It was a Conservative Government who instituted it, and this country can be incredibly proud of what we have delivered for the poorest and neediest people in the world. That will continue. On any view, this country is one of the biggest investors or donors overseas in all its forms, I think we are the second biggest in the G7, whether in percentage terms or cash terms, and that will continue. We have seen a massive increase, as the House will know, in spending on our collective overseas commitments. By the way, as the right hon. Gentleman will know, that is also of huge benefit to Scotland, where there are people in East Kilbride who do a fantastic job in development overseas.”

    Blackford sprung his trap saying, “I am glad that the Prime Minister seemed to agree with the quote, because the words I quoted were his—it is exactly what he told the House of Commons less than six months ago. I take it that the briefing that has gone on is not true and that the 0.7% commitment will remain in place. We need to recognise that covid-19 is a global pandemic, and while we are all in the same storm, some nations have better life rafts. The World Bank estimates that the pandemic will push 88 million to 150 million people into extreme poverty. In the world’s poorest countries, hunger and cases of malaria are rising, and the UN projects that as many as 11 million girls may never return to education after school closures. The UK Government cannot eradicate the threat of covid-19 if there is still a threat around the world. Does the Prime Minister agree that keeping the 0.7% commitment is not only the right thing to do morally but is the sensible thing to do in helping with the eradication of covid-19?”

    Johnson was evasive saying, “Of course I agree that the UK should be playing a leading role in eradicating covid-19 around the world. That is why one of the wonderful features of the Oxford AstraZeneca vaccine, if it is approved, is that it is going to be sold at cost to partners around the world. I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman knows quite how much the UK has already given to COVAX—to the global Vaccine Alliance. I can tell him. It is more than virtually any other country in the world. We should be proud in this country of what we are doing: I think about the $800 million to support COVAX, to say nothing of what we are doing with Gavi and CEPI—the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations and other organisations. We are in the lead in promoting and in inventing vaccines, but also in making sure that the poorest and neediest around the world get those vaccines. I think the people of this country should be very proud of what they are doing, what you are doing.”

    LibDem Leader Ed Davey pitched for Carers, “Three weeks ago, I asked the Prime Minister to support unpaid carers, who are facing extreme hardship during covid, by raising carer’s allowance by £20 a week. It is very disappointing that Ministers have not found that money for carers, but have found hundreds of millions for contracts handed out to Conservative party cronies. It is Carers Rights Day tomorrow, so can I ask the Prime Minister again: will he raise carer’s allowance by £20 a week, as Liberal Democrats are campaigning for, or will he explain why Conservatives think unpaid carers do not deserve extra help?”

    Johnson said, “I would be happy to look at that specific grant again, but I have to say that if the right hon. Gentleman looks at what we have done so far with supporting universal credit and the substantial increases in the living wage, we are doing our best to support families who are the neediest across the whole of the UK. As I say, one of the stunning and one of the most remarkable features of the package that we have given to support lives and livelihoods is that the benefits do fall disproportionately, and quite rightly, on the poorest and the neediest.” The main opposition questions over, Johnson was starting into the ‘Spin cycle!’

    But then I was truly gobsmacked by Tory MP Dehenna Davison, who asked, “I am sure that, like me, the Prime Minister welcomes the incredibly valuable contribution of our essential workers in keeping our supplies actually moving, our economy turning and keeping us safe, but we know that many of our constituents are facing challenges through covid. So, on that note, does the Prime Minister agree with me and many colleagues that, as we are having intense discussions on how to balance the nation’s finances, now is not the time for an MPs’ pay rise?” The PM than actually agreed! “Yes, I do agree with that, and that is why we have frozen ministerial salaries this year, as indeed they have been frozen by successive Conservative Governments since 2010. I know that the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority will have heard my hon. Friend and I would encourage it not to proceed.”

    Labour MP Ellie Reeves made a pitch for the poor, “Food bank use in my constituency has been increasing steadily as working families, including public sector key workers, struggle to make ends meet. Can the Prime Minister therefore tell us whether he thinks the median pay of teaching assistants of just under £14,000, and of nursing auxiliaries of £18,000, is enough to live on? I will ask him again: instead of delivering a public sector pay freeze later today, will he give those key workers a well-deserved pay rise?”

    The PM had to sell this resumption of austerity or the public might expect the wealthy elite to start paying down the debt! “The hon. Lady is right to value key workers and the amazing job that they do—particularly teachers and teaching assistants, who have done fantastic work in getting our kids back into school over the last few months and continue to do an amazing job. I am proud not just of the work we have done to increase public sector pay, with an inflation-busting package in July for the third year running, but of what we are doing to support the record increases in the living wage—delivered by a Conservative Government, invented by a Conservative Government. Conservative Governments can do these things because we understand how to run a strong economy.”

    But the shocking Tory betrayal of the poorest was also well exposed by Labour MP Tonia Antoniazzi, who said, “In the summer, we stood on our doorsteps and clapped for all our key workers; today, they will be hit once again with a real-terms cut to their wages by the Chancellor’s pay freeze. I really do wonder, does the Prime Minister actually realise that claps do not pay the bills?” Tories will target all workers… The PM replied, “The hon. Lady will recognise, at a time when the private sector, when the UK economy, has been so badly hit, and when private sector workers have seen falls in their income, that it is right that we should be responsible in our approach to public finances, and that is what we are going to be. She should be in no doubt that the commitments we have made have been outstanding so far: above-inflation increases for public sector workers just in July; a 12.6% increase for nurses over the past three years; the biggest ever increase in the living wage and more to come in just a minute if she will contain herself.”

    The reality of what the Tories mean with their ‘levelling up’ lie is becoming clearer by the day, money moves up from the pockets of the working poor to the bulging trousers of the wealthy elite. Austerity mark 2.0 under a more deceptive, but palatable name. The new “levelling up fund” will be carefully allocated between Tory MP pork-barrel projects to benefit Tory corporate interests and grow the party slush fund. No one can convince me that huge swaths of former Labour supporters ‘lent’ their vote to these sadists in the full knowledge that they would be driven into destitution and their families will now starve. The Covert 2019 Rigged Election must be fully Investigated ASAP; it simply does not make any sense at all. The lockdown restrictions are being manipulated to cripple the north financially, while sparing London and pain; this is another tool of austerity. The working poor will be so desperate for jobs that they are rendered ripe for exploitation just as their EU protections are stripped away by crash-out Brexit. Get The Tories Out! DO NOT MOVE ON!

    #62679 Reply
    Kim Sanders-Fisher

    A few short years ago I would have enjoyed spending a great day on the 9th of February celebrating June’s birthday, but as much as I still miss my mother’s vibrant company, this year I was soon to feel thankful that I wouldn’t be struggling to care for her through the ravages of this global pandemic. The Covid restrictions would have stifled her gregarious nature, as the inability to socialize would have been inexplicable to her dementia addled mind. She lived with me and died very suddenly, but I was right there beside her which is a great comfort to me now. I was spared the agony of worrying about her feeling abandoned and isolated in a Care Home surrounded only by infected patients discharged from Hospitals to spread Covid among the vulnerable and staff chronically ill equipped to care for them. Far from the “protective ring” Matt Hancock claimed to have placed around such facilities, the reality was a cruel and needless slaughter inflicted on our elderly by this heartless Tory Government now relieved of the cost of their care!

    I found a comment that I posted on that day back in February when Covid was confined to just a few pockets of contagion beyond China and the UK had strong advanced warning to prepare. After casting my vote for Bernie at a site set up for Democrats abroad I took the bus home; March the 7th was the last time I got on a bus as I soberly assessed my own personal risk. This is where our response should have started, with a ‘Covid Risk Algorithm’ to help people to assess their personal risk and what precautions they should take to reduce that risk for the public good as well as their own benefit. Public as well as personal because I consider it to be exceptionally selfish for anyone who is in a high risk category to consciously decide to ignore that risk knowing that NHS staff will be required to put their lives at risk to provide for the afflicted in intensive care. The algorithm would need to include community risk, work environment, societal and accommodation risk as well as co-morbidities, age and ethnicity, with help for completion.

    These risk assessments could have been done online or over the phone with skilled people available to assist those who found the process confusing. If this had been strongly encouraged early on it would have been possible to identify most of the people at greatest risk within the community and target those who might need extra assistance to isolate as and when the Covid situation progressed. This was valuable Public Health data that could have greatly increased preparedness and reduced infection rates. As a former yacht delivery Captain I’m very familiar with quarantine; a centuries old concept that evolved to stop the spread of disease arriving on ships from foreign ports. When you dock the boat after a long passage there is nothing you want more than to race ashore find a pub and down a cold pint, but you’re trapped onboard with the ‘Q’ flag flying until you have cleared quarantine. Early on we really should have placed restrictions and quarantine requirements on all those entering the UK via our ports and airports.

    At one time in the UK we were strict with quarantining TB patients, even quite young children, in Sanatoriums: they were miserable places, but before drugs were available to treat TB the public good took precedence over personal freedom. The greatest point of failure in requiring those suspected of exposure to self-isolate is the totally unrealistic level of support provided, which, in far too many cases, has been no support at all. It is difficult to imagine how this painfully obvious non-compliance risk could not have been fully anticipated by the Government, but just like discharging untested Hospital patients back into Care Homes filled with vulnerable elderly, it screams culpable negligence! If the necessary restrictions had begun with personal choices made by those most at risk and then expanded to banning mass gatherings like Cheltenham and the Liverpool match, where football fans from a Covid hotspot in Madrid escalated infections, we wouldn’t now be dealing with massive fatigue over repeated harsh lockdowns nine months on.

    I think it would have been perfectly feasible for pubs and restaurants to stay open after investing in all the Government mandated precautions, especially if those who self-assessed at higher risk stayed away or were served outside during the warmer weather. The precautions could have been improved by providing grants for businesses to fit Hepa-filters for increased air exchange and baseboard level ultra-violet LED lights to kill the virus, (I use a uv light wand to kill germs on packages delivered to my door.) The mushrooming infection rates in schools are still being ignored as the risk school children pose to older relatives in multigenerational households was never taken into account. This could have been recognized early on with that aforementioned algorithm, so that extra precautions could have helped reduce any risk. Lack of affordable housing has forced many minimum wage earners, in zero hours contract jobs, to remain living with parents and they are too financially insecure to take time off work without extra support.

    This Tory Government created a perfect storm through a decade of austerity and exploitation with the obscene poverty and gross negligence of deprived areas worse in the north than in any other part of the UK; is it any wonder the infection rates have been so much higher in the abandoned north? But the Tory Government response is even more punitive there, forcing businesses to close while staff are expected to survive on just a percentage of minimum wage. Forget all the optimistic Tory PR spin about ‘levelling up’ the tier system of regional lockdowns appears tailor made to cripple northern businesses and drive the population into destitution on mass. The Tories are ‘decimating down’ on an industrial scale and crash-out Brexit will be the final blow. The car manufacturers will move to the continent because the tariffs and an end to just-in-time production lines will signal an abrupt halt to viability. The
    Brexiteer profiteers are counting on being able to strip away workers rights and protections and break the UK Unions; Covid helps!

    That comment I had made in response to one of Craig Murray’s posts back on the 9th of February feels even more relevant and ominous now nine months on. I had written that: “I am constantly being told that people really were just ‘too stupid’ to see the writing on the wall; they voted against their own self interest in favour of Brexit. I am now told that the same ‘idiots’ supported the Tories to ‘Get Brexit Done,’ despite the looming risk of crashing out of the EU without a deal which now seems increasingly likely. I can understand why some people voted for Brexit under the blizzard of disinformation that blindsided so many people in the UK, but I cannot fathom the Tory ‘landslide’ and, beyond the unacceptable insult, stupidity does not come close to justifying such an unbelievable result.” A full nine months on, Johnson’s “oven ready deal” has been incinerated with the machinations over Covid lockdown restrictions being used to deviously distract the public while the PM deliberately runs down the clock to crass-out day!

    I documented that, “Although I am sometimes gratuitously accused of implying that those who voted for Brexit were just ‘stupid bigots,’ I have never been so insulting as to put their decision down to stupidity or racism; this type of angry mudslinging gets us nowhere in the debate. I prefer to claim that we were all a lot too trusting. We trusted politicians who lied to us on both sides of the EU Referendum issue. It’ is not a crime to be too trusting and even the smartest among us can be fooled by a slick con artist. However, our politicians should not be lying to us and we should be able to hold them to account when they do. That is what needs to change.” Sadly nothing has changed and the lies continue flowing thick and fast with zero accountability from this Government. The most distressing observation is the disgraceful way in which the BBC have constantly reinforced blatantly obvious pieces of false information to present a warped reality where a serial liar endorses Tory abuse while an honest man is vilified as a monster!

    Back then I was still trying to uncover the truth when I wrote, “The lies of Brexit were so successful in winning over the vote and, since those who told the most outrageous ‘Porkies’ were never reprimanded let alone punished for misleading the electorate, the entire landscape of what is permissible in terms of exaggeration and BS has spiralled way out of control. The message on the side of the bus, and the invasion of the Turks worked well for Boris, so why not boast of building 40 new hospitals and drum home that PR pitch by deliberately lying to parliament during PMQs? MPs can be disciplined for calling another MP a liar in the Chamber, but no rule prevented Margaret Hodge from defaming Jeremy Corbyn as an ‘anti-Semite’ without a shred of evidence to support her insult.” Now Johnson has stretched the fake pledge even further, no longer just 40 new Hospitals, he now claims it will be 48, but Labour “Under New Leadership” is too busy trying to force Corbyn to retract a true statement of fact, to challenge the PMs Porkies!

    I could clearly see the direction of travel way back in February and the situation has got so much worse since then. Early on I had serious concerns about the direction Keir Starmer would take if he became the Labour Party Leader, but the extent of his ruthless abuse of power has been truly shocking. The totally unwarranted capitulation to pay off the Ware SLAPP Suit was a clear signal he is a Tory Trojan horse sent in to destroy loyal opposition. I had written, “The current political climate penalizes those who speak truth to power and demonizes those who adhere to honest and truthful conduct. To limit scrutiny, Boris Johnson wants to cherry-pick which journalists he will condescend to speak to, while he is still threatening the viability of an already heavily Tory compliant BBC. The PM plans to effectively neuter the Judiciary to eliminate any possibility of future interference in his authoritarian power grab. He already appears totally devoid of accountability for his numerous lies, mistakes and dodgy financial dealings.”

    Things have got so much worse since then as Covid has presented the perfect vehicle for the PM to introduce unpleasant aspects of authoritarian rule under the guise of a pandemic crisis. It sounded alarmist at the time but look where we are now: it isn’t hard to imagine the continuation of this dire trajectory. I wrote, “We must fight to restore the integrity of our democracy before we are frog marched into a Dictatorship. This is not just one reckless loon catastrophising; the Tory agenda was documented on page 48 of their manifesto and all of the classic warning signs are falling into place. We can demand increased scrutiny of the government and we should expect full accountability. Investigating this last General Election is a vital first step in order to validate the unfathomable result or correct the injustice of a rigged vote. No matter what is discovered, exposing the serious flaws that leave our Electoral System wide open to corruption must drive long postponed Government reform. Please read, sign, share and link to this Petition:

    This next revelation plucked from an article I read is morphing into a new reality for Covid Britain with the Tory Government able to pin the destruction of viable businesses, hollowing out of already deprived cities and towns with a massive drop in wages, not on an avoidable crash-out Brexit, but a global pandemic. How convenient for the wealthy elite who will take every opportunity to max-out their post Brexit exploitation of the working poor. Back in February the harsh impact of Covid wasn’t obvious when I wrote, “Still dreaming of those sunny uplands of post Brexit prosperity? This International Business Times Article has a few stark words of warning from those who do stand to reap the profits: ‘One of the biggest names in European private equity said that Brexit will be good for his business, but will mean a 30% wage reduction for UK workers. He added that EU immigration will be replaced with workers from the Indian subcontinent and Africa, willing to accept ‘substantially’ lower pay’.” Tories are laughing all the way to the bank!

    At a time when intolerance was at its highest level, as Brexiteers ant Tories touted their fake victory, I warned, “This does not look good, but however you, your family and your friends may have voted in the EU Referendum or in the recent General Election, let us try to ditch the insults and the assumptions that others might want to insult those with whom they don’t agree. We have all been a lot too trusting while politicians have lied and continue to lie to us. This must stop. To restore trust we must demand genuine honesty, politicians cannot limit or sensor robust public scrutiny; no one is above the law so they must always be held fully accountable if they lie and cheat.” The sickening development since then is that now we’re not just dealing with a devious serial liar PM and his dangerous handler Cummings taking a wrecking ball to Government, but a thoroughly untrustworthy dictatorial power monger bringing “New Leadership” with zero Labour Opposition self destruction under the Captain of Capitulation, Sir Keir Starmer!

    In a Skwawkbox Article entitled, “Corbyn is no longer Labour leader, nor even currently a Labour MP, but he’s STILL the face of party’s fight against antisemitism,” they reveal the disgraceful truth. “Starmer’s Labour cares so much about combating anti-Jewish hate that it hasn’t bothered to update its page on the subject, seven months after he stepped down as leader. Four months ago to the day, Skwawkbox exposed the fact that the Labour party had not updated its page about the party’s stand against antisemitism. Almost four months after Keir Starmer took over as Labour leader, Jeremy Corbyn was still the face of the party in its solidarity with Jewish people and its efforts to educate people to eradicate antisemitism: Another four months later and Corbyn is not even currently a Labour MP – forced to sit as an independent by Keir Starmer’s breach of Labour’s rules and of the EHRC’s ban on political interference in disciplinaries (and in spite of the EHRC’s clear reaffirmation of Corbyn’s right to comment on the report).”

    However despite the very public vilification and relentless claims of serious outrage from his accusers over alleged support of anti-Semitism astoundingly the Skwawkbox report that, “he is still the only face of Labour’s official stand against anti-Jewish racism. As of No Place For Antisemitism – The Labour Party (archive.org): Keir Starmer and his acolytes care so much about antisemitism and standing with Jewish people that they haven’t even bothered to update Labour’s official page on the subject. ‘Weaponising’ Jewish people against left-wing members for political purposes, as Jewish members have criticised him for doing, sure. That‘s not too much trouble. But updating a page to show solidarity and educate others – or even just to avoid the embarrassment of having an MP you’ve thrown out of the parliamentary party and tried to kick out as even an ordinary member? Clearly that’s a step too far for the shoddy, shallow, Starmer-‘led’ Labour party.” When it comes to hypocrisy that really says it all!

    “New Leadership” by dictate might work well for the PM, but Sir Keir Starmer’s, ‘my way or the highway’ arrogant ‘Stalinist’ rule is not acceptable in a Party that is so heavily reliant on its hardworking Party faithful to get out the vote: the progressive Left will not accept being gagged! In the Skwawkbox Article entitled, “Breaking: full London CLP votes ‘no confidence’ in Starmer AND Evans,” they report on the growing anger and fierce push-back from Labour CLPs throughout the country. They ask, “Is Hackney South and Shoreditch the first full constituency party to defy free-speech ban and formally vote down leader and general secretary? Hackney South and Shoreditch constituency Labour party (CLP) has just voted through the following motion: This CLP affirms it has no confidence in Keir Starmer and David Evans, who have demonstrated they are unfit to lead and manage our party at this time when the working class desperately needs a Labour Party offering a united fight against the Tories with bold socialist policies.”

    This is no isolated incident or just a progressive Labour Left outlier as they demonstrate their disgust in Starmer’s ego driven ‘New Leadership;’ the prohibition of free speech is being very publically called out and condemned, despite an eerie, if well anticipated, silence from the BBC and Tory dominated Mainstream Media. A few days ago the Skwawkbox reported that, “Smaller branch units have already passed similar motions and one CLP has voted no-confidence in Evans, but HS&S appears to be the first full CLP to have passed a no-confidence motion in Starmer in the short time since he broke parliamentary rules to withdraw the whip from Jeremy Corbyn after Corbyn was reinstated by a right-dominated panel of National Executive Committee (NEC) members because legal advisers confirmed there were no valid grounds for his initial suspension. However, other CLPs are busy preparing motions despite the flagrant abuse of party rules and Jewish left-wingers by the hierarchy to suppress free speech.” Bring it on!

    The typhoon is about to spill out of the teaspoon, with a full scale civil war now underway within the Labour Party. Sir Keir Starmer himself must have fallen into the trap of actually believing that vile fantisemitism news, demonizing Jeremy Corbyn, had succeeded in turning his predecessor from hero into hated villain. However, a massive groundswell of support for the former Labour Leader is underway right across the country totally discrediting one of the key premises under which Labour supposedly lost last December’s vote. In reality the propaganda pumped out by the Tory compliant BBC, right wing Media and cooked up by the ‘Integrity Initiative,’ a fake ‘charity’ paid directly by the Tory Party, obviously failed to convince any genuine Labour supporters. Any political Party that has proven funding connections with an organization deliberately generating fake news to cripple the opposition, as Conservatives have, this would be more than enough corruption to see the Tories removed from power in a properly functioning democracy.

    This already proven extreme level of corruption should have seen the Tories removed from power even without the additional high level of suspicion warranting challenge of the unfathomable ‘landslide victory’ claimed by Boris Johnson in the Covert 2019 Rigged Election. So now, as we head for the inevitable long planned Tory catastrophe of crash-out Brexit, this very long overdue challenge must be launched to prevent even further disaster that will solidify decades of Tory Dictatorship. Corbyn is obviously not hated by Labour members who, based on false accusations of racism, decided to ‘lend’ their votes to the Tories. I believe that if the fraud and corruption of the Covert 2019 election is fully exposed the EU will agree to grant more time and an extension of the transition period, but I think this should be conditional on another referendum. Look at the EU response to the situation in Belarus and it is obvious they cannot support further negotiations or the decision of a corrupt, fully delegitimized Dictatorship: the Tories must go!

    #62716 Reply
    Kim Sanders-Fisher

    The Canary Article entitled, “Government accused of ‘suppressing’ coronavirus science for ‘political and financial gain,” exposes the current appalling level of Tory Government corruption. They report that, “The government’s handling of the coronavirus (Covid-19) pandemic is, once again, under fire. It is facing legal action over at least £700m of controversial contracts and has been accused by the executive editor of the British Medical Journal of suppressing science for ‘political and financial gain’.” As part of their: “#FollowTheMoney series, this article looks at the allegations the government faces of operating a ‘chumocracy’ in its awarding of profitable contracts and breaching EU law by not publishing those contacts.” They say that, “Furthermore, its ‘cherry-picking’ of scientific research has led to accusations of ‘mass state corruption’. British Medical Journal (BMJ) executive editor Kamran Abbasi stated that the science surrounding coronavirus is being ‘suppressed’ by politicians and governments.”

    The Canary report that, “Politicians and governments are suppressing science. They do so in the public interest, they say, to accelerate availability of diagnostic treatments. They do so to support innovation, to bring products to market at unprecedented speed. Both of these reasons are partly plausible; the greatest deceptions are founded in a grain of truth. But the underlying behaviour is troubling. Science is being suppressed for political and financial gain. Covid-19 has unleashed state corruption on a grand scale, and it is harmful to public health. The statement follows The Canary’s recent analysis which reported that leaked emails supported the claim that Public Health England blocked a paper. This research specifically raised concerns over the accuracy of coronavirus antibody test kits.”

    The Canary point out that, “according to Abbasi, not only did the health department attempt to block BJM’s research, it also tried to bury its existence. The suppression of this research allowed the sale of one million tests and added to growing concerns of political vested interests. Abbasi described this as the ‘gagging of scientists’. Abbasi stated that: Importantly, suppressing science, whether by delaying publication, cherry picking favourable research, or gagging scientists, is a danger to public health, causing deaths by exposing people to unsafe or ineffective interventions and preventing them from benefiting from better ones. When entangled with commercial decisions it is also maladministration of taxpayers’ money. A growing concern is not only the endangerment to public health but that coronavirus contracts have not been published which is a requirement under EU law. Regulation 50 specifically requires a level of transparency. Regulation 18 highlights the need to be transparent when authorities outsource contracts.”

    The Canary report that, “However, a pre-action protocol letter accuses the government of systematically failing to comply with transparency regulations. At least £700m given out in undisclosed contacts The Good Law Project has now filed multiple legal challenges to the UK government. Its letter, which nominates the health secretary and the Cabinet Office minister as defendants, outlines a long list of evidence breaches. The main challenge involves details about the un-published government contracts.
    The document lists the contracts, worth around £700m, as evidence of the government’s breaches:

    • £250m PPE contract to Saiger – owned by Micheal Saiger but branded as Miansai, a US Jewellery company.
    • £252m PPE contract to Ayanda Capital Limited – a currency trading company specialising in offshore property – contract not published.
    • £108m PPE contract to Clandeboye Agencies Limited – a confectionary company – contract published.
    • £32m PPE contract to Crisp Websites Limited (t/a Pestfix)- specialising in pest control products – contract not published.
    • 10 more contracts awarded to Pestfix – contracts not published.
    • £930,000 artificial intelligence contract to Faculty Science Limited – contracts not published.
    • £840,000 public research to Public First Limited – contract not published.
    • £56m to consultancy firms which are undisclosed and contracts unpublished.”

    According to the Canary, “The failure to follow transparency regulations only puts more doubt on ministers’ interests. Government advisors like John Bell, who had £773,000 worth of shares in the company that sold antibody tests to the UK, can profit from these deals. While the pharmaceutical company involved, Roche, was awarded one of the smallest contracts, selling £13.5m worth of antibody tests to the UK, it is a prime example of how government advisors are able to benefit from outsourcing contracts. The Good Law Project called government actions persistent and unlawful: Within two weeks of opening its portal inviting tenders for PPE in March 2020, the government had 24 000 offers from 16 000 suppliers, many of whom had experience in providing PPE for healthcare professionals.” But, “Surprisingly, three of the biggest beneficiaries of government contract awards were companies specialising in jewellery (Saiger), pest control (Pestfix) and an opaque ‘family office’ owned through a tax haven (Ayanda).”

    The Good Law Project has exposed the abusive squandering of public funds. The Canary say, “With claims that jewellery and pest control companies were chosen over 16,000 offers many with experience providing PPE to healthcare suppliers, the government’s duty of care comes into question. The Canary contacted the Department of Health for comment but had not received a response at the time of publication.” The Canary asked, “Can science be safeguarded? According to Abbasi, yes. But there are two crucial steps: The first step is full disclosure of competing interests from government, politicians, scientific advisers, and appointees, such as the heads of test and trace, diagnostic test procurement, and vaccine delivery. The next step is full transparency about decision making systems, processes, and knowing who is accountable for what. Abbasi claims that being transparent and accountable for actions must become a normal procedure in government.”

    The Canary report that, “In fact, Abbasi goes so far as to offer the following solutions to prevent competing interests. The simple two step approach is:
    • Government employees should ‘only work in areas unrelated to their competing interests’.
    • Governments and industry must stop using press releases to announce changes in science policy. Advance publication of policy is far better as it doesn’t leave the information open to manipulation.
    When good science is suppressed, people die While in an ideal world vested interests wouldn’t come into play, the transparency of these interests is vital to safeguarding public health and public spending.”

    According to the Canary, “Abbasi’s argument is that, as a bare minimum, those with vested interests must not be involved in decision making that they could benefit from – either politically or financially: The medical-political complex tends towards suppression of science to aggrandise and enrich those in power. And, as the powerful become more successful, richer, and further intoxicated with power, the inconvenient truths of science are suppressed. When good science is suppressed, people die. As details of minister and advisor interests continue to emerge, the transparency of contracts and declaration of vested interests is vital to safeguarding the healthcare industry. The suppression or withholding of information essential to decision making is not just unlawful but is reckless. Not just to public spending but to public health.” The Canary urge the public to, “Get involved:” pointing out that, “You can stay up to date with this series by bookmarking our #FollowTheMoney Page or our Investigations Page.”

    The Tories must be forced from office; the ongoing relentless squandering of public funds follows on from the growing suspicions over the legitimacy of their miraculous ‘win’ at the Covert 2019 Rigged Election, that could easily be challenged and exposed as fraudulent following a full Investigation. The staggering levels of corruption threatening the credibility of the Conservative Party are on top of their corrupt financing of the fake charity, ‘Integrity Initiative,’ who wilfully engaged in fabricating defamatory news content aimed at discrediting the Opposition Labour Party and vilifying the Labour Leader Jeremy Corbyn, to help sell a truly incredulous ‘landslide victory’ result. But if the Tories were forced from power we would need a credible progressive Labour opposition ready in waiting to take control of Government. The chronically weak “New Leadership” of Trojan horse Keir Starmer is seriously mired in corruption at this time. Labour must show integrity and good governance under strong leadership with the return of Jeremy Corbyn.

    A divided Party is unelectable, but Starmer is determined to split the Labour Party to hang on to power. The Skwawkbox Article entitled, “Ceredigion Labour votes no confidence in Starmer and against Evans and treatment of Young Labour Chair; CLP stands up to Stalinism,” shows just how rapidly resistance to Starmer’s undemocratic, arrogantly authoritarian stance has infuriated the increasingly disenchanted membership. They say, “Ceredigion constituency Labour Party (CLP) in Wales has joined the growing number of CLPs to vote no confidence in Labour leader Keir Starmer – but members didn’t stop there. The CLP passed four motions on Friday evening, including the no-confidence vote. Other motions criticised the conduct of the party’s general secretary David Evans, Labour’s high-handed and arrogant treatment of Young Labour chair Jessica Barnard – and condemnation of the treatment of former party leader Jeremy Corbyn, in spite of Labour’s escalating war on free speech and attempts at public intimidation by right-wing figures.”

    The Skwawkbox documented the decisions made by Ceredigion CLP that as printed in full below, “The principal motions read:
    1. This CLP notes the General Secretary’s numerous emails to CLP and Branch Secretaries and Chairs informing them that several areas of Party business are “not competent business” for CLPs or Branches to discuss. This conflicts with the Party’s long-standing custom and practice and tradition, whereby both affiliates and CLPs have the right to engage in discussions and adopt positions on matters across the full range of party business and policy. One reason our Party is among the largest in Europe is because internal debate has always been encouraged. Members/CLPs have always been able to freely express their views to the NEC and the Leadership. This apparent break with that democratic tradition within our Party is a matter of grave concern.

    We accept that on occasions there will be genuine legal reasons that could necessitate restricting open discussion on certain matter(s). This restriction should be approved by the NEC (or its Officers) after consideration of the relevant legal advice. This CLP believes that it is for the elected NEC to decide on those matter(s) that should be restricted. The General Secretary should not be making unilateral decisions of this nature. We therefore call on the NEC to defend the right of CLPs, Branches, and affiliates, to discuss the full range of party issues as per established custom and practice.”

    2. Ceredigion CLP notes with concern the decision taken by the Leader of the Labour Party not to restore the Party whip to its former leader Jeremy Corbyn.Jeremy Corbyn was reinstated as a member of the Labour Party on 17th November and we believe the Labour whip must also be restored. We call on Keir Starmer to review this decision immediately and restore the whip to Jeremy Corbyn.

    3. This CLP believes that members have the right to discuss, debate, speak out and show support and solidarity with comrades in the party. Freedom of speech and democracy are precious to us, it is our core and our strength. We feel that democracy and freedom to speak out is being threatened and our rights are being undermined. Regretfully and after much consideration we have decided that we have no confidence in the Labour leader. We have arrived at this conclusion because:
    • It feels that we are barely functioning because of a dictatorial style of leadership, leading to an oppressive atmosphere. People are no longer confident to speak out in case they are disciplined or suspended.
    • The leadership demonstrates that it does not value the members and priorities are skewed. Our work for the party is taken for granted, and we are not appreciated. We are used and abused. We are indispensable when canvassing at election times, but we are disposable at other times when bigger donors are being courted. We are labelled and derided for our true socialist values. We feel unwelcome in a place where we should be valued.

    • It feels that our party under the leadership of Mr. Starmer is taking us to places that are an anathema to our standards and expectations. The whipping of the PLP to abstain on the ‘Spycops Bill’, the suspension of Jeremy Corbyn, commenting to the media (Andrew Marr) re the disciplinary matter and generally not providing an effective foil to the incompetent Prime Minister.
    • We were promised unity, we get the opposite. We should be supporting ‘Black Lives Matter’, BAME members of the PLP are receiving no visible support. Mr Starmer seems to have some issues with women which has been demonstrated by the treatment of; Rebecca Long-Bailey and Nadia Whittome amongst others.

    • Mr Starmer appears to be distancing himself from all forms of oppression bar one. On the issue of antisemitism, which we agree is a problem and deserving of action, he appears to be ignoring the valid contribution of Jewish Voice for Labour. It can only be assumed that this is because of their support for Jeremy Corbyn.
    • Mr Starmer authorised compensation without court action for individuals who may yet be found culpable in losing the 2017 election. The Forde report is yet to be published and our members are suspicious that findings will be swept under the proverbial carpet.
    • The latest action, denying Jeremy Corbyn the whip, is a betrayal of us all.
    This CLP therefore declares that it has no confidence in Keir Starmer as Leader of the Labour Party.

    Ceredigion CLP utterly condemns the attempts by the Leader, and Labour HQ to silence both Young Labour and specifically its new EC, chaired by Jess Barnard after a stunning success in the recent YL elections.
    The CLP notes that:
    • As a direct result of Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership, the Labour Party experienced an unprecedented surge in youth membership in the past five years.
    • Jessica Barnard achieved an amazing 71% of the YL vote, on an unambiguously socialist platform.
    • These successes were repeated all across the country by the Socialist future platform.
    • The new Young Labour EC has a stromg mandate from members, and faithfully executed that with their statement on the 21st of November, in support of Jeremy Corbyn
    • The attempted political interference by the Leaders office is in direct opposition to the reccomendations of the EHRC report

    The CLP utterly condemns:
    • The Leader’s attack on the left, and on the young left more specifically
    • The leader’s attempts to politically interfere with Young Labour and to gag Young Members.
    The CLP resolves to:
    • Issue a statement in support of Jessica Barnard and the rest of the Young Labour Committee
    • To continually act in solidarity with the Young members of this CLP and others
    • To encourage the growth, strength, and ability to self-organise of Young Labour locally in this CLP
    • To condemn political interference by the leader wherever it happens.
    • To send this motion to the General Secretary and the leader of the labour party.”

    This very bold stand taken by the Ceredigion CLP clearly articulates an expansive set of grievances justifying their well considered decision that, “This CLP therefore declares that it has no confidence in Keir Starmer as Leader of the Labour Party.” What will it take to remove Starmer from the Leadership role he obtained through making false promises to the Labour Party membership? As I am unfamiliar with their party structure I do not know, but he needs to get the old heave ho fast before he causes more damage with a full scale exodus of members. Nothing is leaking out to the right-wing Media while they pretend to support him as a credible opposition leader precisely because the Captain of Capitulation fails to oppose toxic Tory policies like the Spycops Bill and more, but they cannot keep it secret forever. That is when the ‘crumbling red wall’ hoax and the ‘borrowed votes’ scam will come totally unravelled: obviously if so many CLPs right across the UK support Corbyn’s return, then they do no hate him as the media claim!

    Every week is hailed as the final crunch week for the sham Brexit negotiations as the Tory hard core Brexiteers deliberately run down the clock to crash-out day. The Media have paid a lot of attention to fishing rights, but I am convinced that this is a devious distraction from their most important red line which focuses on the level playing field. The deal on fishing is governed as much by how much EU vessels can take in our newly sovereign waters as by whether UK fishermen have a market to sell their catch. The issue the Tories do not want the public to contemplate is allowing the UK to gain an unfair advantage by stripping away all our EU Labour rights and worker protections as well as slashing ‘red tape’ over safety standards in all areas including our food production and animal welfare. For the Tories everything is worth sacrificing for profit; their bogus ‘levelling up’ pledge will help mask the harsh reality of decades of Tory exploitation. We don’t have long to derail this Machiavellian plot and avoid the dystopian nightmare ahead. DO NOT MOVE ON!

    #62722 Reply
    Kim Sanders-Fisher

    The Morning Star Article entitled, “Starmer criticised for urging party members to drop legal action for Corbyn’s reinstatement,” wades into the ‘Typhoon in a Teaspoon’ debate, or prohibited debate, over the Captain of Capitulation, Keir Starmer’s, misjudged targeting of Corbyn in the fantisemitism controversy. They warn that, “’If Sir Keir thought he had acted legally’, say Jewish Voice for Labour, ‘he wouldn’t be so anxious not to have his actions questioned’,” noting that, “Campaigners criticised Labour Party leader Sir Keir Starmer today for having urged supporters of his predecessor Jeremy Corbyn not to “tie up” the party with costly legal actions in an attempt to secure his reinstatement. Islington North MP Mr Corbyn was suspended from the party last month after saying that the scale of anti-semitism in Labour under his leadership had been ‘dramatically overstated for political reasons’.” It is obscene that the Labour Party ever sought to discipline Corbyn for making an accurate, truthful statement; what does it say about the Party?

    The Morning Star remind us that, “His comments came after an inquiry by the Equality & Human Rights Commission (EHRC) found that under his leadership, Labour had unlawfully handled complaints of anti-semitism. Former shadow attorney general Shami Chakrabarti is working on a legal case to get Mr Corbyn’s suspension revoked. In an LBC radio phone-in, Sir Keir said the party should be focusing on campaigning and winning elections. He said that he would raise the issue with Lady Chakrabarti when he next spoke to her. A Jewish Voice for Labour spokesman said ‘it is quite inappropriate’ for Sir Keir Starmer to ask Lady Chakrabarti to abandon the legal action, adding: ‘If he thought he had acted legally he wouldn’t be so anxious not to have his actions questioned. In fact, it is the findings of the EHRC of unlawful acts that are themselves likely to be questioned at law’.” A significant faction of the Jewish community represented by Jewish Voice for Labour, are being totally ignored by Keir Starmer.

    The Morning Star point out that, “Mr Starmer has been criticised for repeatedly defending the decision to suspend Mr Corbyn publicly, after Labour branches have been ordered not to discuss ‘individual cases’ such as the former leader’s suspension.” Keir Starmer is emulating the dysfunctional Tory model of, “don’t do what I do, do what I say” and it is not a good look. His new style of authoritarian rule has created a fierce backlash from CLPs right across the UK. He is trying to impress the public by taking a strong and decisive stand on anti-Semitism, but this entire debate was hijacked a long time ago by the Zionist Lobby and Starmer is just seen as doing their bidding. As a qualified Lawyer he really should know better as he is now on very shaky ground. Under Jeremy Corbyn, Labour in the UK swelled their ranks to become the largest Socialist Party in Europe; now members are leaving in droves! Sir Keir Starmer has well and truly burned his bridges and I don’t see a way back for him to remain Leader of the Labour Party.

    Starmer has made other chronically ill-advised legal decisions recently as he doggedly stuck to the same flawed allegiances and goals. The Labour Legal team strongly advised him that they would win the John Ware SLAPP Suit, but he capitulated offering a groveling apology and a hefty unwarranted payout that really infuriated many Labour members. It was sickening to see defamation rewarded, but if at some point the truth emerges, Ware and all those who lied in sworn statements could potentially be charged with perjury, which is a serious custodial offence. Starmer deciding to settle out of Court was a truly grave error of judgement because SLAPP Suits are generally not strong enough to prevail in Court. It’s extremely important to fight them robustly in a Court of law; Starmer’s appeasement will undoubtedly generate a proliferation of similar frivolous SLAPP cases that will drain the Labour Party coffers and continue to damage the reputation of the Party, making Labour unelectable for years to come.

    Mike Silver has included a quick poll to test public sentiment in his Vox Political Article entitled, “Starmer had £50K from pro-Israel lobbyist…” He asks if it isn’t, “Time for a ‘no confidence’ vote?” Cynically captioned, “Keir Starmer: he’s pictured practising the hallmark of his Labour leadership so far, inactivity;” clear about his contempt for the Labour Leader he says, “Now we see why Keir Starmer was so cagey about donations to his Labour leadership campaign. He has been taking cash from lobbyists dedicated to pushing the interests of the Israeli government, from opponents of Jeremy Corbyn and funders of the so-called Independent Group for Change (or whatever they ended up calling themselves) – the Labour splitters who were annihilated in the last general election. In other words, it seems his funders are opponents of socialist, pro-Middle East peace Labour. This casts a shadow over his handling of the leaked Labour document on factional interference in the party’s handling of anti-Semitism complaints.”

    Silver reports that, “With so many anti-Corbyn funders, and the report showing how anti-Corbyn sentiment informed the lack of exertion on anti-Semitism by the party’s Governance and Legal Unit, it is easy to reach an obvious conclusion about Starmer’s priorities. This would be hasty. But it certainly seems clear that Starmer’s innocence needs to be established before he can continue as leader. A responsible man would step back, (I think the word is) recuse himself and allow an independent investigation into the report and his donations, returning to office only if he is found innocent of any wrongdoing or corruption. Trouble is, he hasn’t done that. So my question is: is it too early for a vote of ‘no confidence’ in this non-leader’s leadership?” When I added my vote it was 73% in favour of a no confidence vote and only 26% against. Silver lists the Canary Article entitled: “Keir Starmer received £50,000 donation from pro-Israel lobbyist in leadership bid” as his source.

    Silver also makes a pitch for donations to his, “Crowdfunding Appeal, raising funds to fight false libel claims by TV celebrities who should know better? These court cases cost a lot of money so every penny will help ensure that wealth doesn’t beat justice.” When he talks of ‘wealth beating justice,’ although he doesn’t fully identify them as SLAPP Lawsuits that’s what they are, mostly bought on a ‘no win no fee’ basis with back-up insurance to eliminate all risk to litigants. The Panorama case Ware has lodged against Jeremy Corbyn is a SLAPP, but it is stalled right now due to the huge fighting fund raised to secure justice in Court. Silver is also facing a similar SLAPP case over fantisemitism. Essentially this is a fight against SLAPP Lawsuits where people think they can make easy money bringing a totally baseless liable case against those they want to gag and intimidate into silence. It is one of the greatest modern threats to free speech and the important work of professional investigative journalists trying to expose corruption.

    In the Morning Star Article, “Silencing Labour members over Corbyn ‘unacceptable,’ says CWU” the Communication Workers show that it’s not just Labour CLPs in this fight because, “A Union has accused Labour general secretary David Evans of ;unacceptable’ silencing of members who want to discuss the party’s treatment of Jeremy Corbyn at meetings. The party has a ‘very serious issue developing regarding freedom of expression and natural justice’ over the ban on discussing the suspension of the Islington North MP, Communication Workers Union (CWU) general secretary Dave Ward wrote in a letter to the union’s branches. Mr Ward warned that directives from Mr Evans forbidding Labour CLPs from discussing Mr Corbyn’s situation and expressing their solidarity, and even suspending members for doing so, ‘only serves to deepen divides within the party along factional grounds.’ He said that CWU has ‘expressed directly; to Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer concerns over ‘freedom of expression and natural justice’.”

    The Morning Star report that, “Evans had written to Labour CLPs this week to say that motions relating to the withdrawing of the whip from Mr Corbyn, and motions of solidarity ‘will be ruled out of order.’ A number of CLPs have defied his instructions by passing motions in support of Corbyn, including Birmingham Hall Green, Hampstead and Kilburn, Milton Keynes North and South, and Leeds North East, according to the LabourList website. The chair and co-secretary of Bristol West were suspended for having allowed a motion to be debated, and Labour has now cancelled the CLP’s AGM. Others, such as Hackney South and Bristol East, have circumvented the ‘ban’ by instead commenting on democracy or passing motions of no confidence in Evans or Sir Keir.” They remind us that, “Corbyn was suspended on October 30 pending the investigation of his comments over the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s report into Labour’s handling of anti-semitism complaints.”

    Jeremy Corbyn made a statement of fact when, “He had said that ‘anyone claiming there is no anti-semitism in the Labour Party is wrong’ but that the ‘scale of the problem was overstated for political reasons by our opponents’.” We can’t continue to propagate the overblown fantisemitism lies to appease the Israeli Lobby. They say that, “When Corbyn was reinstated to the party earlier this month his successor Sir Keir swiftly withdrew the whip from him. Ward said in his letter that Sir Keir’s action ‘flies in the face of the party’s rules and customs’ as Labour’s national executive committee panel had found Corbyn ‘to be not guilty of any breaches in a unanimous decision.’ An emergency motion was presented to the CWU NEC which called for Corbyn to have the whip restored. This was passed unanimously. His letter came a week after the Bakers, Food and Allied Workers’ Union said that it would be consulting members over whether it should remain affiliated with Labour because of concern over the ‘political direction’ of the party.”

    All of these Unions know that Corbyn was there standing shoulder to shoulder with them at strike protests over pay and working conditions; he has earned their genuine respect and they will not abandon him. The Unions pay to sustain the Labour Party, but Starmer is putting their significant contributions at risk and it is not just about their respect for his inspirational predecesor who he is so determined to vilify and remove from the Labour Party on groundless charges. The ego-centric “New Leadership” with a notable lurch to the right, ditching the ten pledges he made to con them into voting for him, failing to provide robust opposition to the most toxic Tory Government in our lifetime and beholden to the dictates of the Zionist Lobby, no longer represent Labour values. Unite have already voted to reduce their contribution to the Labour Party and it is only a matter of time before other powerful Unions decide to do the same. If Starmer wants to rely on wealthy donors he will be required to meet their special interest demands.

    Keir Starmer definitively proved early on that he was no friend of ordinary workers and their Unions when he ousted Rebecca Long Bailey on a flimsy fantisemitism pretext. He failed to support the Teachers Union when they tried to demand that Covid precautions must be in place before children returned to school, doubling-down on his desertion by sacking the Shadow Education Secretary for standing her ground on the issue to protect their rights. The Captain of Capitulation supported Johnson’s demand for schools to reopen, sending children back into unprepared, overcrowded classrooms to incubate the Coronavirus and infect their older relatives in multigenerational households. With no demand for functioning test, track and trace before Starmer fully endorsed the PMs deadly error, Covid is spreading rampantly through schools, colleges and workplaces, while pubs are being forced to close unnecessarily. This, despite the growing evidence demonstrating where the risk is greatest: is the PM making deliberate, well calculated, mistakes?

    According to the Website “Stats for Lefties” the “Support for Corbyn” is on the rise as Labour CLP refuse the Labour NEC gagging order. They are keeping a running tab of the now controversial motions regularly updated on their site. They, “list the Constituency Labour Parties (CLPs), affiliated trade unions, other affiliated organisations and Labour Members of Parliament (MPs) who have called for Jeremy Corbyn MP to be readmitted to the Parliamentary Labour Party, have expressed solidarity with Corbyn, or who have passed a motion of no confidence in Keir Starmer or David Evans. As of 28th November, the totals are: 58 CLPs; 4 trade unions, representing a total of 1.5 million workers; 1 affiliate (Young Labour) and 28 Labour MPs.” A copy of, “The full list of who has shown support for Corbyn can be found” on their Website and you are asked to contact them with any updates, “If you have an addition to this please tweet it @LeftieStats on Twitter.”

    A Morning Star Article entitled, “Without a political alternative, we face a historic downgrade to living standards,” offers a genuinely hopeful way forward with the neo-liberal consensus as the only obstacle to achieving this goal. The problem: this Tory Government and sadly Starmer’s “New Leadership” capitulation dragging Labour to the right! They say, “Thousands more families go into the weekend facing real anxiety over how they will keep their heads above water over the winter with news of Sir Philip Green’s retail empire Arcadia’s impending collapse. It’s a grim end to a week in which Chancellor Rishi Sunak predicted surging unemployment until mid-2021. Retail union Usdaw expects 150,000 jobs in the sector to go by the end of the year. And it is not the only sector experiencing mass job losses. Mass unemployment also means downward pressure on wages. Sunak claimed while announcing a real-terms pay cut for millions of public-sector workers this week that this was justified because of falling pay in the private sector.”

    The Morning Star offers a Reality Check on that huge mistake, saying, “Actually the attacks on public-sector pay are an attack on wages generally. Lower public-sector pay weakens pressure on private business to raise wages. Workers with less money in their pockets will also spend less, further damaging private-sector business, leading to more job losses and further downward pressure on pay. We face a historic downgrading of living standards, with the Resolution Foundation predicting this week a cut in average pay packets of £1,200 a year by 2025. All this is avoidable. The Conservatives will do their best to claim mass unemployment and growing poverty are inevitable consequences to the shrinking economy. But that shrinking economy is their fault. Britain faces the biggest economic downturn in Europe. Even now, when the rapid economic recovery of countries that have effectively suppressed the virus such as China and New Zealand is plain, ministers will not adopt a zero-Covid strategy.”

    The Morning Star spells out how, “Their half-measures, including a ‘lockdown’ that has been nothing of the sort because the sector recording the highest numbers of new infections, schools, was not included, have merely prolonged the pain, raising the prospect of yet more ‘waves’ of infections and future lockdowns. Covid could have been a game-changer in a different sense. The huge sums spent on propping up the private sector could have come with conditions. Stricken industries could have been nationalised and reshaped. Schools could have been made safe for socially distanced learning by the expropriation of unused property and a mass recruitment drive that could have led to permanently smaller class sizes.” Sadly, if the Covert 2019 Rigged Election had not succeeded in defrauding the British public out of a progressive Socialist Government then we would very likely have seen all these measures implemented under Jeremy Corbyn’s Leadership, but Labour under “New Leadership” will offer more austerity lite.

    The Morning Star describe how, “The significant shift to home working could, if accompanied by the right government policies and incentives, help revive high streets outside major urban centres as millions of workers save time on the morning and evening commute. It could breathe life into towns and villages that have suffered from the concentration of jobs and investment in London and a handful of other major urban centres.” They say that, “Instead everything we have seen from ministers, and for that matter from the Labour front bench, is fixated on propping up a broken system. As Usdaw points out, the crisis on our high streets predates Covid. The long squeeze on incomes has lasted since the bankers’ crash of 2008. Giant firms, from Carillion to BHS, were being hollowed out and dumped to make fortunes for a handful of spivs long before 2020’s lockdowns.”

    The Morning Star warns that, “Unless serious pressure is built up behind an alternative, the next decade will be a sorrier sequel to the last. Collapses like Arcadia’s will merely accelerate the growth of precarious, poverty-pay work, even when we have all just witnessed the dangerous public health consequences.” They offer a positive way forward, saying, “The first building block of the alternative is the fight to defend jobs. This requires a national, co-ordinated effort from trade unions — the TUC’s New Deal for Workers campaign is well placed to lead those discussions — community-based campaigns such as local People’s Assembly groups and networks of influence in local and regional government, such as the Alliance for Full Employment. The Tories will say unemployment is an inevitable feature of a depressed market. We must make it a political issue ministers cannot dodge — indeed, the overriding political issue facing the country.”

    What I consistently find incomprehensible is the blind acceptance that huge numbers of former Labour supporters voted for Boris Johnson supposedly just because they trusted this notorious serial liar to “Get Brexit Done.” Allegedly they felt confused and that Labour had betrayed them by promising another referendum, but this does not make sense. This fantasy tale does not explain why the very man pushing hardest to demand a second vote would have been rewarded as the top choice to replace Corbyn in the Labour Leadership role. The Tory track record guaranteed that Brexit would strip away workers rights, while voting Labour would have prioritized protecting those rights and a whole host of other important guarantees to protect ordinary citizens. A confirmatory vote was a logical and fair option because we would all have known what had been negotiated before making any final decision. I believe that the Labour team could have negotiated concessions for remaining in the EU as well as a reasonable deal if we left.

    Boris Johnsons’s lies are coming unravelled thick and fast; his “oven ready deal” is now in ashes as we head for the crash-out cliff edge. Will he start to sell us the snake oil, ‘Hobson’s choice,’ no deal renamed the “Australian Deal” next week? I anticipate major distractions, possibly a ‘dead cat,’ but we cannot afford to be distracted. The Covid restrictions will be used to keep a lid on public protests: we cannot allow that to happen. We need to protest like the French, because we have a hell of a lot to lose here if we do not derail this warped Tory Government. It’s time to challenge their reckless squandering of public funds; also time to challenge the legitimacy of that unfathomable ‘landslide victory’ and demand a full Investigation of the Covert 2019 Rigged Election. Exposing the truth about all of the corruption and the fantisemitism lies too would see both Johnson and Starmer removed from power. A corrupt Tory Government with a weak and incompetent Labour opposition: this will require a concerted effort to restore our democracy.

    #62733 Reply

    The EHRC report is repetitious but worth lowing through desire the thinness of its case. They investigated 70 cases and came up with two cases showing a problem. One was the case of livingstone. The interference from the leaders office was actually to suspend as soon as possible. Nevertheless the headlines usually win as no one reads tedious reports.
    But look at the possible nature of some of what is coming out here and marvel at the impartiality

Viewing 40 posts - 361 through 400 (of 518 total)
Reply To: Elections Aftermath: Was our 2019 Vote & the EU Referendum Rigged? #TORYRIG2019
Your information: