Has Starmer reneged on agreements made? Twice?

JVL Introduction

A short – and not so sweet – report in Skwawkbox suggests a Leader out of his depth…

This article was originally published by Skwawkbox on Wed 9 Dec 2020. Read the original here.

Approving statements then punishing for them – once is bad enough, but Starmer’s treatment of Corbyn and Long-Bailey makes a pattern

Rebecca Long-Bailey received the weasel treatment over statement after she was attacked for retweeting true article

The confirmation today of what SKWAWKBOX told readers two weeks ago – that Keir Starmer and his staff knew what Corbyn’s statement was going to say and didn’t object, then u-turned and withdrew the whip after Corbyn’s statement was issued and his suspension was lifted – has established a shameful pattern.

Corbyn’s statement was approved by ‘LOTO‘ – as Corbyn’s team has always insisted – and then Starmer weaseled on the deal, the most charitable interpretation being that he buckled under right-wing screams of outrage that their attempt to oust Corbyn from the party had hit the buffers.

And when Starmer sacked Rebecca Long-Bailey from her post as Shadow Education Secretary in June, on the pretext that she had retweeted an article – an accurate article – by actor Maxine Peake, Long-Bailey revealed that she had also agreed the content of her subsequent statement with Starmer, who then sacked her anyway once it had been safely issued:

Twice a statement has been agreed – and twice the agreement has been binned as soon as the statement was made.

Starmer’s track record, even just on this issue, is a scandal.

The SKWAWKBOX needs your help. The site is provided free of charge but depends on the support of its readers to be viable. If you can afford to, please click here to arrange a one-off or modest monthly donation via PayPal or here to set up a monthly donation via GoCardless (SKWAWKBOX will contact you to confirm the GoCardless amount). Thanks for your solidarity so SKWAWKBOX can keep bringing you information the Establishment would prefer you not to know about.

Comments (6)

  • Harry Law says:

    Starmer wants his victim to admit wrongdoing by apologizing for any hurt caused, then disciplining the victim thereafter justifying his actions by saying the victim has already admitted guilt so he had no other alternative. Some might say that is acting in bad faith, that’s true, and it is why they want an unambiguous apology from Corbyn as a reason to permanently exclude Corbyn from the PLP. Jeremy you have been warned, do not apologize for telling the truth.

  • Harry Law says:

    David Renton is a specialist discrimination barrister explains why Starmer could be up the creek without a paddle by withdrawing the whip.
    First, because it is contrary to natural justice to investigate people twice for the same offence. This was why Chris Williamson won the first part of his case: “In my judgment,” wrote Mr Justice Pepperall, “ fairness to a member requires that, where the Party communicates an apparently final panel decision in unequivocal terms concluding a disciplinary case … the Party should not itself reopen the case.”.
    Second, because the rules the whips are claiming Corbyn has broken are ones only the NEC, not the leadership or whips, can investigate., Third, this is how rules work in law: a general power cannot be used to override a specific one. In other words, if two bodies within one organisation both have the power to discipline, and one has it in general terms (ie it can investigate anything) while the other has the power to investigate a specific misdemeanour, it is the latter which investigates the complaint.
    In short, if the leadership had wanted to remove the whip from Jeremy Corbyn for allegations that had not already been investigated by the NEC, it might be in an arguable position now. If Starmer and Evans had wanted to remove the whip from Corbyn for matters unrelated to the NEC code, their decision might stand up in court. Were it not for the findings of the EHRC, the leadership might conceivably have a case.
    But fitting all these together, if the case does come before the High Court, it is hard to see how the decision could possibly be upheld.
    David Renton is a specialist discrimination barrister. He is currently writing Labour’s Antisemitism Crisis:

  • John Bowley says:

    In my observation, Sir Keir Starmer MP is a low fictionaliser and unfit for office.

  • Naomi Wayne says:

    Just a small point – contrary to Squawkbox, Maxine Peake’s interview DID contain an inaccuracy, which she hadn’t invented or included as ‘subconscious antisemitism’ – she clearly took it from an article by an Israeli Jewish pro-Palestinian activist who herself later apologised for her error. The error was NOT that she attributed training in neck-kneeling generally to Israeli security services, but that she attributed training given to the Minnesota police specifically to those services.

    However, I do not regard Peake’s error as itself antisemitic, just a mistake, and one whose origins are traceable. Ergo, I don’t regard RLB’s retweeting of the entire Peake interview, which contained all sorts of sweeping statements, including this particular error, as any kind of antisemitic wrongdoing.

    None of this affects the general point Squawkbox is making, but in such febrile times, it is crucial to get facts right.

  • Stephen Richards says:

    ………for more information & debate post your comments on Skwawkbox. PS just a personal suggestion from me to you!

Comments are now closed.