Too little, too late

Are the most prominent left media living up to their promise?

JVL introduction

Left media have a massively important role to play in keeping socialist ideas alive in the current climate, following the crushing of the Corbyn project, the emergence of an unapologetically anti-democratic leadership in the Labour Party and the increasing normalisation of authoritarian, racist thinking in Tory-run Britain.

Prominent media voices – individuals like Owen Jones, Ash Sarkar and Aaron Bastani, platforms like NovaraMedia and Tribune – have the capacity to illuminate a landscape which is becoming dark and forbidding.

In this article, Talal Hangari reflects on how they have performed on a question which has caused deep splits on the left – the Labour Party’s decision to proscribe certain groups it has declared beyond the pale. He finds a disappointing reluctance to stand up and fight.

____________________

The author of this piece, Talal Hangari, is a Labour Party member who was expelled from the Cambridge University Labour Club in May 2021 for criticising the IHRA definition of antisemitism.


Left Media Must Stand Up to Purges

 Keir Starmer’s proscriptions in the summer of 2021 constituted an attack on the Labour left. The proscriptions targeted four organisations: Socialist Appeal, Labour Against the Witch Hunt (LAW), Labour in Exile Network (LIEN), and Resist. Labour List reported that ‘supporters of these groups will be auto-excluded from the party’,[1] meaning that they would be rapidly expelled: ‘Labour will automatically kick out supporters of these four groups when there is prima facie evidence of their involvement with them.’[2]

According to Labour sources, the rationale for the proscription of Socialist Appeal was that ‘the group is considered … to be a successor organisation to Militant’.[3] As for the other groups, their proscription was ‘related to antisemitism and their connections to figures including Tony Greenstein, Jackie Walker and Chris Williamson, all expelled from the party.’[4] The argument was that these groups were simply too divergent from Labour’s aims and values to be considered valid associations within the party. Additionally, it was reported that ‘[t]here is a hope among some Keir Starmer backers that this could also have the effect of lowering morale among Corbynites and undermining the “stay and fight” argument on their wing of the party.’[5] The proscriptions were doubtless an attempt by the right-wing of the Labour Party to crush and demoralise the left.

On 20 July 2021, the NEC approved the proscriptions and established a panel to consider bans of other groups: ‘these organisations are not compatible with Labour’s rules or our aims and values’, a Labour spokesperson said, before also affirming that ‘Labour is a broad, welcoming and democratic party and we are committed to ensuring it stays that way’.[6]

Everyone on the political left should understand that mass purges (for what else are ‘auto-expulsions’?) of the kind sanctioned by the NEC fly in the face of any commitment to either natural justice or freedom of expression. Consider how broadly ‘support’ for LAW was defined: ‘the list of ways to support them includes participation in an event the group has hosted or organised, because that is one of its primary ways of campaigning.’[7] Mere ‘participation’ in an event, which in itself cannot be considered evidence of endorsement of LAW as an organisation, was seen to be a valid excuse to expel members. This kind of guilt by association is a hallmark of authoritarianism and should have been rejected by all with a sincere commitment to freedom.

The other problem with mass purges is that they take absolutely no account of individual behaviour, which might be convenient for the inquisitors, but violates justice – humane legal systems prohibit collective punishment. Labour’s rules ordinarily instruct that a member accused of misconduct is investigated and then a determination is made about whether they should face a sanction and what that sanction should be. In contrast, under these proscription rules, it is irrelevant how you conducted yourself in relation to the proscribed organisation; almost any form of association with them could lead to expulsion.

The other appalling principle which the proscriptions established was that the new rules could be applied retroactively: involvement with these organisations prior to their proscription was just as much an offence as involvement with them after their proscription. In other words, everyone who did not want to be expelled should have used their prophetic abilities to divine that in July 2021 the groups they had been involved with would be forbidden. What kind of ‘rule’ is that? It is plainly obvious that the Labour right was engaged in a politically motivated purge and willing to jettison due process to achieve its ends.

For those who believe in freedom of expression as a matter of principle, the above mentioned organisations should not have been proscribed: they align with the politics of the left and in many cases their members were long-time activists in the Labour movement. In short, they subscribed to the policy platform of the Labour Party even as they opposed what they viewed as unjust and politically foolish disciplinary actions. Even if you disagree, why demand or accept the silencing of such groups?

There are great benefits to be reaped from allowing your assumptions to be challenged by those who disagree with you, and progress toward truth depends on this exchange of ideas. Unfortunately, left media’s most prominent voices were not prepared to defend elementary liberal principles. Instead, their silence (or even support for the purge) contributed to reducing the political relevance of the left within the party yet further.

‘A Stalinist style purge’

Owen Jones is a case in point. In his first public comment on what Starmer and the right-wing had done, Jones came out fighting: ‘Keir Starmer promised no more navel gazing, but instead of fighting the Tories, Labour is now beginning a Stalinist style purge. All the people who portrayed Corbynism as scary authoritarianism will be those most loudly demanding ever bigger purges.’[8] He added, ‘[w]ith no inspiring vision to offer the country, the Labour leadership has settled on kicking the left and nothing else.’[9]

But by the next day, Jones had back-pedalled. On Twitter he asserted that ‘Socialist Appeal aren’t antisemites’[10] (in contrast to everyone in the other groups that Labour was set to expel?) and then declared ‘I support kicking out LATW, yes. I don’t support action against Socialist Appeal which in my case would essentially be pissing all over my father’s grave’.[11] In supporting ‘kicking out LATW’, one of the most prominent left-wing journalists in the country endorsed what he had just yesterday called a ‘Stalinist style purge’. Jones later condemned Labour because they ‘kicked out Ken Loach, Britain’s greatest living film maker, whose films have moved and inspired millions … That tells you all you need to know about the state of the current Labour Party.’[12] Why was Jones surprised? Ken Loach had been a sponsor of LAW (as it is usually known) for years. By supporting ‘kicking out LATW’, Jones effectively supported the automatic expulsion of Loach. Apparently not seeing the contradiction in these positions, Jones continued to oppose Loach’s expulsion but qualified his earlier remarks with concerns about a play Loach directed in 1987, which Jones said ‘was incredibly distressing to Jewish people on entirely well-founded grounds.’[13] By September, Jones had reached a new position on proscribing LAW. He wrote:

It’s suggested that I de facto support Loach’s expulsion because I agreed with a tweet by a left-wing member of Labour’s NEC who declared that “members who wish to be involved in the Labour movement” should not be involved in organisations such as Labour Against The Witchhunt, a deeply problematic outfit backed by Loach, and I stand by that. But to clarify: I don’t support proscribing that organisation, not because I have any sympathy for it, but because proscriptions lead to witch hunts, and instead members should have disciplinary measures taken against them based on their own individual behaviour.[14]

Note how Jones executed his change in position: ‘to clarify’, he said, ‘I don’t support proscribing that organisation’. But this wasn’t a clarification; it was a volte-face. Jones supported ‘kicking out LATW’ in July (before they were officially proscribed) and opposed it in September (once they were already proscribed). If Jones had changed his view, shouldn’t he have said so openly instead of pretending that this was a clarification, rather than a reversal, of his original position? Furthermore, his commitment to avoiding ‘witch hunts’ might be considered more genuine had he not supported the party’s various high-profile disciplinary actions during the Corbyn years. It’s incredible that Jones supported a mass purge of Labour members. It’s perhaps even more incredible that he does not appear to have reflected on, or learnt from, that error.

Examining other media that, like Jones, portray themselves as speaking for a broad left constituency, leaves us with disappointingly little to say. In the case of Novara Media and Tribune, where the proscriptions were not supported, they were not opposed, but instead simply not discussed. As far as I’ve been able to establish, not one article appeared on Novara Media’s website opposing the proscriptions on any grounds – not free expression, not natural justice, not the hypocrisy of refusing to proscribe right-wing organisations in Labour that practice racism, not the wrongness of retroactively applying new rules, nothing. When invited to demonstrate otherwise, Novara could not point to any discussion of proscriptions on its TyskySour podcast either. Nor did a single article appear in Tribune denouncing the attack on Labour members’ right to organise themselves without being purged through guilt by association. Tribune did not reply to requests for clarification on whether they reported on proscriptions or not. I could not locate even a tweet against proscriptions from any of the prolific Twitter users associated with these left media.

Ironically, the journal of liberal capitalism, the Guardian,[15] did find space for an article discussing the proscriptions from a critical perspective. There was opposition too from publications whose left allegiance is clear – such as the Morning Star, Canary and Skwawkbox. But from influential journalists who should have made the issue of proscriptions their own, ‘Solidarity Forever’ became ‘Solidarity Never’. To fight against the purge would not have required a detailed defence of each proscribed organisation’s record. All that would have been required was opposition to the idea that mass expulsions are a good way to manage party discipline.

It was only when certain individual cases highlighted the iniquity of the proscriptions regime that the previously silent left media raised their voices. Pamela Fitzpatrick was expelled from the party in November 2021 for speaking to Socialist Appeal in May 2020. Michael Walker commented that ‘Labour are expelling so many good people for the most tenuous of reasons.’[16] ‘It really is such an outrage what they are doing!’ he added.[17] Aaron Bastani suggested that such actions would impact Labour negatively in the May 2022 local elections.[18] The question is, if Bastani and Walker found the effects of the proscriptions damaging, why didn’t they attack the proscriptions from the beginning? It seems that, like Owen Jones, the loudest voices in left media considered the proscribed groups too politically toxic to mount a vigorous defence for them, even a vigorous defence based merely on free expression: ‘I hate what you say, but will defend your right to say it in a democratic political party.’

Such is the state of left media.

Footnotes

[1] Sienna Rodgers, ‘Battle between leadership and Labour left intensifies amid proscription plans’, Labour List, 18 July 2021.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Rowena Mason, ‘Labour votes to ban four far-left factions that supported Corbyn’s leadership’, The Guardian, 20 July 2021.

[7] Rodgers, ‘Battle between leadership’.

[8] Owen Jones, Tweet, 17 July 2021, 10:16PM.

[9] Owen Jones, Tweet, 17 July 2021, 10:16PM.

[10] Owen Jones, Tweet, 18 July 2021, 9:29AM.

[11] Owen Jones, Tweet, 18 July 2021, 4:51PM.

[12] Owen Jones, Tweet, 14 August 2021, 2:25PM.

[13] Owen Jones, Tweet, 23 August 2021, 11:39PM.

[14] Owen Jones, ‘No, Jews did not collaborate in their own genocide’, 6 September 2021

[15] Tom Blackburn, ‘Keir Starmer is shrinking the Labour Party’, The Guardian, 25 July 2021. Blackburn wrote of the proscriptions, ‘It isn’t necessary to carry a torch for all or any of these groups to see the cynicism of the manoeuvre.’

[16] Michael Walker, Tweet, 20 November 2021, 2:18PM.

[17] Michael Walker, Tweet, 20 November 2021, 2:23PM.

[18] Aaron Bastani, Tweet, 20 November 2021, 2:07PM.

Comments (19)

  • Paul M says:

    I just read Owen Jones’ article on Perdition and Rudolph Kasztner, in which he takes the line that criticisms of RKs actions in Hungary are unjustified and thus the central thrust of the play is antisemitic.
    He clearly hasn’t read Paul Bogdanor’s extremely well researched and scholarly book ‘Kasztner’s Crimes’ which concludes that he was indeed guilty of collaboration with the Nazis.

  • Martin Read says:

    Thank you for this JVL. As a self-confessed socialist- left the party after Starmer’s sacking of RLB- I have often wondered why ‘the left’ has remained reluctant to speak out for so many good socialists and anti-racists (Jackie W, Ken Livingstone et al). I feared that the sort of compliant self-censoring routinely employed by those such as Andrew Marr was perhaps creeping even here. Are those like Woodcock Mann and Austin a genuine and serious threat- they always seem so angry and clown-like. Surely, I thought, a number of solid left journalists are simply making it far easier for the MSM to fabricate an alternative ‘truth.’

  • Rory O'Kelly says:

    Will members of the NEC who voted against the proscriptions now be expelled? This seems the logical next step. Once it is accepted that disagreeing with the majority is a ground for expulsion and supporting the right of other people to disagree with the majority is also ground for expulsion it is hard to see any natural end point to the purges.

  • A very interesting and illuminating article, especially the bit which says, “Labour’s rules ordinarily instruct that a member accused of misconduct is investigated and then a determination is made about whether they should face a sanction and what that sanction should be.”
    I was suspended in March 2016 and reinstated in July 2020. No investigation took place. No inquiry. No opportunity to defend myself against anonymous allegations.
    For four years during my suspension and one year after my reinstament, I asked for details of the allegations against me. The LP refused to supply the details. I asked under Section 7 of the DPA for the information the LP held on me. They refused to give me the information. I went to the Information Commissioner’s Office and they wrote to the LP and still the LP refused to divulge anything.
    Eventually, the LP told me that if they gave me the details of the allegations, that would identify those who had made the allegations. The ICO agreed with the LP!
    Justice in the LP does not exist for anyone who calls themselves a socialist.
    The LP has lost 150,000 members through resignations and expulsions. It is losing by-elections up and down the country. Nobody knows what the LP stands for and that includes me after almost 57 years of active membership. In addition, the Party is almost bancrupt.
    And even when the supreme decision-making body, the Annual Conference, decides on policies, such as on Palestine and public ownership of energy companies, the policies are rejected by the leadership on the basis that the policies are only valid while Conference is taking place.
    You could not make it up.
    The present leadership seems intent on destroying the LP rather than allowing the emergence of another Corbyn style project.
    Unfortunately, the LP is the only mass political voice of working class people and while that remains so, I will contimue to fight for socialist policies in the LP.

  • Neil G says:

    Owen Jones was a key player in attacking Corbyn and promoting the “anti-semitism crisis” narrative. He is a political opportunist and cant be trusted. The “soft left” in the party hasnt the spine to fight the right and defend democracy. We shouldnt be surprised. The silence is deafening.

  • Sean O’Donoghue says:

    On note 14… Owen Jones, ‘No, Jews did not collaborate in their own genocide’, 6 September 2021….got me to an article, which I found most interesting, on the play, Perdition, written by a left wing Zionist, which Jones puts forward as one of the reasons why he is all over the place in regards Ken Loach. Who wrote the article …please.

  • Paul Smith says:

    It’s worth reading Oliver Eagleton’s review of Owen Jones’s book on Corbyn and ‘Corbynism’ in New Left Review 127 Jan-Feb 2021. It’s available on the web.

  • Allan Howard says:

    Martin, numerous people on the left have supported and defended Jackie Walker and Ken Livingstone and many other’s who have been fraudulently accused of A/S, including JVL *and* the authors of numerous articles that JVL have re-posted on their website, some explicitly and others implicitly.

    But perhaps I can answer your question THIS way: What happened to Ken after he defended Naz Shah? Yes, he too was falsely accused of A/S (and fraudulently accused of saying Hitler was a Zionist), along with mountain-loads of faux outrage. And all those who participated in the Big Con were letting it be known that anyone who defends someone they have accused of A/S will ALSO be lambasted and condemned and vilified and demonised and, as such, either accused of being in denial, or defending the indefensible.

    What it amounts to (each attack, that is) is a ‘blitzkrieg’ of condemnation and phony anger, which the MSM sanctioned and endorsed and conspired in, and every single person who did so was an enemy of democracy AND didn’t give a damn about causing concern and consternation in Jewish people in their quest to sabotage Jeremy’s leadership and his chances of winning a general election. And not a single one of them gives a rat’s posterior about anti-semitism!

    And who but fascists work to deceive millions so as to subvert democracy.

  • Naomi Wimborne-Idrissi says:

    Sean, I’ve tried following the trail but can’t find the article by a left wing Zionist that you mention. Can you provide a link?

  • Sean O’Donoghue says:

    Response to Naomi

    If you click on Jones’ link… https://owenjones84.medium.com/no-jews-did-not-collaborate-in-their-own-genocide-4b9fd08a09ad

    You’ll find the article appended to his post.

    If you Google following, you will find an evisceration of the article by Tony Greenstein…exactly what you’d expect from Tony! He knows his stuff.

    “This blog post is a response to Asa Winstanley’s article on Ken Loach’s play Perdition”

    According to Tony, the article, purporting to come from a left wing anti Zionist, was published anonymously.

    What surprised me about it was no mention of Hannah Arendt’s Eichmann in Jerusalem.

  • Allan Howard says:

    I should also add that I have no doubt whatsoever that Ken was set up AND that Naz Shah’s post(s) from 2014 had been known to Jeremy’s enemies since she became an MP in 2015, or are we supposed to believe that they just happened to come to light purely by coincidence just ten days or so before the local elections in 2016 – ie the very first local elections as of Jeremy being at the helm.

    Ken – being the most high profile left-wing ally of Jeremy Corby’s – was the real target (I doubt many people had ever heard of Naz Shah prior to her post(s) hitting the headlines), and the original plan was to condemn him and attack him for defending Naz Shah and her ‘anti-semitic post(s)’, and had Ken not said what he said – ie alluded to The Haavara Agreement and, in respect of the agreement, said that Hitler was supporting Zionism – I have little doubt that John Mann would have verbally attacked him for defending someone – ie Naz Shah – who wanted ‘to transport Israel and the Israelis to the US’. But as it transpired…..

    And isn’t it odd that if what Ken said was so terrible and offensive AND anti-semitic, that in the three hours afterwards up until he arrived at Millbank Studios at 11.45am to appear on the Daily Politics – where he was ‘ambushed’ by John Mann at the entrance (and there just happened to be a camera crew to hand!) – not a dicky-bird had been said about it!

    Hmm……

  • Allan Howard says:

    Footnote to my previous post:

    I was 99.9% certain that Ken said in his resignation statement, that he said what he said about Hitler, and that he was supporting Zionism. at 8.50am, and arrived at Millbank Studios at 11.45am – ie more-or-less exactly three hours later – but I just wanted to be absolutely certain (before I posted my above comment), and so I did a search on JVL AND, as such, there were TWO results, one of which I hadn’t seen before, or the comments in respect of it. The article in question is entitled ‘Ken Livingstone’s resignation from the Labour Party – 2’, and was posted on June 2nd, 2018.

    There are several comments that I take issue with, and especially the one posted by Colin Lomas, who started by saying the following:

    ‘It’s difficult to understand Ken Livingstone’s fascination with the Hitler-was-a-Zionist theory…..’

    Yes, very difficult indeed given that it was non-existent!

    And then he finishes by saying that:

    ‘…he should and could have done far more to explain and diffuse the story. Instead he has remained silent for two years and not challenged the people who have used the story to undermine the Labour party.’

    This is just blatant out-and-out disinformation, and Ken of course did a number of interviews during the course of the following year or two so as to explain about The Haavara Agreement AND that THAT is what he was alluding to in the interview with Vanessa Feltz when he said that Hitler was supporting Zionism (but he just got condemned and vilified again each and every time he did).

    As for the posters who asserted that Ken was being provocative, is it really possible that they didn’t read his resignation statement, because it’s crystal clear from his explanation about why he said what he said that he was NOT being provocative.

    https://www.jewishvoiceforlabour.org.uk/article/ken-livingstones-resignation-from-the-labour-party-2/

    And here’s a link to his resignation statement:

    https://www.jewishvoiceforlabour.org.uk/article/ken-livingstones-resignation-from-the-labour-party/

  • Stephen Richards says:

    “The BBC is too ‘Left Wing’.” A dominant ideological statement perpetually endorsed by MSM. A problem identified that must be ‘dealt with’. Interesting how ‘left wing’ now means ‘Woke’ rather than ‘Socialist’, courtesy of the Guardian. Where are the Socialist journalists & politicians that the establishment is so afraid of, now never being offered a platform. For AS read Socialism……….game over, Socialism is dead.

  • Harvey Taylor says:

    I left the Labour Party when Livingstone was suspended. I knew then that the game was up.
    If it wasn’t so serious it would be funny!

  • Jeanette Fletcher says:

    Darrall Cozens You write –

    “The LP refused to supply the details. I asked under Section 7 of the DPA for the information the LP held on me….. I went to the Information Commissioner’s Office and they wrote to the LP and still the LP refused to divulge anything.
    Eventually, the LP told me that if they gave me the details of the allegations, that would identify those who had made the allegations. The ICO agreed with the LP!”

    My story is very similar to yours, but I did get some support from the ICO who instructed the Labour party, in four separate emails, to provide me with a Subject Access Request. I eventually was forwarded a partial SAR, but only after I employed a solicitor to act on my behalf, at considerable expense. Labour’s solicitors covering letter confirms that the SAR is incomplete. I have managed to obtain some of the missing documents from other sources. After I received my SAR, I lodged a formal complaint with the Labour party, detailing breaches of GDPR by the CLP secretary and the lack of due process in their treatment of me. This was in 2019 and I am still waiting for a response.

    It will come as no surprise to you, that the ICO seems to have a relaxed attitude to the impartiality of their staff, or at least they did around the same time as you and I were trying to get information from the Labour party. This blog from c 2016/17 shows that the Labour leader of Stockport Council was also a group manager at the Information Commissioner’s Office, who managed the teams responsible for complaints about political parties and local councils. I was told by friends and also my MP that one of my ex CLP executive officers had started working at the ICO around this time – one of the “secret 7”?
    https://2040infolawblog.com/2021/03/10/the-secret-seven/

  • James Kemp says:

    Again I see the stay and fight bridge out WHY? Oh, it’s the only game in town so what. My ideology is socialist as was my parents and grandparents if I even get to see them again I get to hold my head high and tell them I walked away from Labour when it become Tory-lite. Did it hurt heck yes! I diden’t give them another vote or penny because they stopped believing in socialism and the workers and wanted to be rich scum like their pals the Torys.

    If you want to bend your view or kid yourself you can change 95% of the PLP and virtually every backroom wonk that BTW you have ) power over. Do you have 20+ years I doubt this country has before there is mass unrest at this rate!

    They can never explain how giving them implicit support with membership and money from your pocket while they dump on your ideology is fighting them? well, good luck. I don’t intend to die old and bitter failing. Accept this the old true Labour party is dead. The unions are silent and complicit in the press too until we have a socialist ONLY Labour movement to join again.

    I will support nothing then just help my fellow socialists how I can. Yes, it will take time, but it will be for the many again. Yes, the press will attack but remember that song we used to sing? They will keep the red flying here!

    Staying in Labour is a fool’s mission and if these so-called journalists play quislings and stay silent ignore them; they relied on us NOT the other way round. They turn their backs on us, fine don’t ask me to view BS then!

  • a.hall says:

    Kier Starmer`s agenda is the Destruction of the UK Parliamentary Labour as Her Majesty`s Opposition. Israel and its Slow-Motion Genocide of the Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank Must Not be mentioned by Any MP or Councillor or Member of the UK Labour Party. The function of Her Majesty`s Opposition is Not to Vote With the Tory Government in Restricting UK Voters Liberties.

  • Les Hartop says:

    I hadn’t noticed that Novara Media had dodged these issues but I will certainly check it out.

    As for Owen Jones , well, what can you say.

    None of the recently proscribed organisations should have been.

    There should never have been a need for the existence of organisations like Labour Against the Witch-hunt or Labour In Exile.
    The bullying has come from the top for a very long time.

    As for Socialist Appeal, they may have run a clandestine faction but they were loyal hard workers for the party, and no more a ‘party within a party’ than many organisatons on the right.

    Anyone ‘automatically’ expelled should be reinstated with a public written apology and their membership regarded as continuous and never having been interrupted.

    The people whose actions should be considered as ‘inconsistent with Labour values’ are those people who destroy democracy in the party and use intimidation to undermine free speech.

    People who capture parts of the party’s bureaucratic organisation and use them to overrule the majority of the membership.

    People who squirrel decisions away in arcane and deliberately constructed committees and do not accept that these committees are answerable to the membership.

    People who misuse often moribund affiliated organisations to sponsor themselves onto ballot papers.

    People who, after gaining a position, think it is their right to hold onto it for life.

    People who pack meetings, knowingly spread false rumours, and who bully meetings with regular theatrical hissy fits.

    Time-servers who think their voluntary work gives them ownership of the party.

    People who demonise, slander and expel people instead of debating with them.

    Sadly all this factional undemocratic maneuvering is deeply entrenched in the Labour Party. Some people regard it as the main meat and substance of politics and a skill to be proud of. But in fact it owes everything to Machiavelli, and is the total opposite of Tom Paine’s principles of equality and mutual respect.

    These people are one of the main reasons why enthusiastic new members through the generations have ended up leaving the party. Frustrated, disappointed and resentful.

    Some of these anti-democratic hacks are alive and active in the Canterbury Labour Party…. leveraging the party bureaucracy by raising complaints against members who they have worked shoulder to shoulder with for many years.

    At least eight people from the left expelled recently, and at least eight more in progress !
    Honestly it would bring you to tears to see how the most innocent of individuals are having their political lives curtailed and therefore their democratic rights cancelled.

    People like Owen Jones who flip flop around dependent on how the winds are blowing from one moment to the next have been false friends.

    Anyone directly involved in implementing these automatic expulsions should be expelled.

  • Nicholas Perry says:

    I am another who fell to the purge and was advised to walk away for health reasons – trying to recover from a breakdown. No information from the LP about why until I finally got a copy of the complaint and saw that some of the screenshots appeared to have been taken in the local UNITE office.
    If an alternative left-wing ‘Progressive Party’ doesn’t appear soon then, I fear, the country is doomed to a totalitarian regime for a very long time.

Comments are now closed.