Good Riddance to the Most Hated Prime Minister in British History

 Starmer’s Legacy Will Be That He Supplied Weapons to and Defended Israel’s Genocide in Gaza Whilst Destroying Civil Liberties in Britain

Mehdi Hassan Interviews Owen Jones About His Initial Support for Starmer & What Burnham Represents

You will forgive me if I can’t help gloating at the fall of the most amoral, unprincipled liar to have darkened the doors of No. 10. Compare to Starmer even Liz ‘Lettuce’ Truss and Boris Johnson smell like roses.

Even in his resignation speech Starmer couldn’t help but lie. He claimed to have ripped out the poison of anti-Semitism from the Labour Party whereas what he did was to expel the supporters of the Palestinians, opponents of Zionism and the Genocide that he helped enable.

I Hate Keir Starmer

Starmer managed to expel a record number of Jews, anti-Zionist and anti-racist Jews of course. Being Jewish in the Labour Party meant you were five times more likely to be expelled than non Jews. This was how Starmer fought ‘anti-Semitism’.

Underneath the rhetoric, Starmer was an anti-Semite. Jews were there to legitimise British imperialism. Anti-Zionist Jews were invisible as they didn’t suit his foreign policy agenda. Anti-Semitism and Zionism have always gone together and Starmer was the personification of the anti-Semitic non-Jewish Zionist.

I am surprised though that he forgot to mention in his statement the debt he owed to Peter Mandelson. It was Mandelson who brought Morgan McSweeney in from the cold and enabled his candidacy for Labour Leader even if he was in the end responsible for triggering the process that led to his resignation.

I thought at first it was an oversight but then I realised that paying tribute to a corrupt friend of Jeffrey Epstein, a Zionist and paedophile, would have been a step too far.

There was also no mention of Starmer’s role in attacking basic civil liberties alongside a compliant judiciary. All in the name of ‘national security’. Like in all police states there is no longer a right to demonstrate or protest. There was no difference between Starmer and Sunak/Truss when it came to the constant attacks on the right to protest.

Congratulations to @AndyBurnhamGM on his victory in the Makerfield by-election.

We look forward to working with you as you return to the Commons and wish you well as the new Labour MP for Makerfield. https://t.co/7HjUtTWMNA

— Labour Friends of Israel (@_LFI) June 19, 2026

I welcome the fact that the rat has deserted the sinking ship. It is no comfort of course that Starmer’s successor, Andy Burnham, will be no different. Changing the captain when the ship is heading for the rocks will make no difference unless it also changes course.

The failure of Starmer’s ‘Labour’ Government was not simply because of his own palpable inadequacies. The problem lies with the political project that sees Labour propping up a failing imperialist state.

Despite my loathing for Starmer and all he stood for, I take pride in two things. First the fact that Starmer was the first person to welcome my expulsion from the Labour Party, with a solitary word, ‘good’. One of his characteristics is that he is a man of few words and even fewer ideas.

Like Horatio Bottomley Starmer was a corrupt right-wing nationalist but unlike him he was anything but popular. Starmer’s corruption was not so much financial, though there was  plenty of that, but a corruption of the political process. Starmer came to power through the Labour Together outfit, who hid their donations for fear of what they might reveal.

Starmer also hid the donations he received from right-wing Zionists, businessmen and crooked financiers from Labour Party voters when he stood for Labour Leader. He relied on the rules rather than being honest and open about who was funding him. His cynicism was such that he stood on a left-wing manifesto whilst relying on right-wing businessmen to fund his campaign.

Amongst those who donated to Starmer was

Lord Waheed Alli         £100,000 (he also gave financial backing to Andy Burnham in the 2015 Labour leadership contest).

Bob Latham        £100,000. 

Martin Taylor      £95,000, a hedge fund manager.

Clive Hollick,       £50,000 a businessman & co-founder of the Institute for Public Policy Research. 

Trevor Chinn       £50,000 a notorious Zionist who funds Labour Friends of Israel. 

Peter Coates       £25,000, Bet365 owner. 

Martin Clarke     £25,000, former AA finance director

Paul Myners       £10,000, ex-CEO at Marks & Spencers. Along with Martin Taylor, Myners helped finance the anti-Corbyn group Labour Tomorrow.

This totalled £455,000 compared to £81,400 from three right-wing trade unions, UNISON, Community and USDAW. This is how Starmer’s Labour Party was captured.

It was an honour and pleasure for me to know that I had antagonised Starmer to the extent that he blocked me on X. Clearly my pearls of wisdom riled him.

Alexei Sayle brought out a brilliant video ‘Why I hate Keir Starmer’ which summed Starmer up perfectly. However I don’t hate Starmer, I despise him and all he stands for.

Starmer was a man of few talents with the exception of his ability to lie. Who else could make 10 Pledges to get elected and then break every single one?

The Pledge I loved the most was No. 4 – Titled ‘Promote peace and human rights’. He said

‘No more illegal wars. Introduce a Prevention of Military Intervention Act and put human rights at the heart of foreign policy. Review all UK arms sales and make us a force for international peace and justice.’

Starmer's idea of ‘peace and human rights’ was supplying arms and intelligence to Israel so it could carry out a genocide in Gaza. Starmer denied that there was a genocide in Gaza despite Israel massacring tens of thousands of civilians, destroying 90% of buildings including hospitals and schools and ethnic cleansing, raping and torturing. But Starmer had no problem describing other massacres as genocide.

Starmer never did explain why 8,000 dead in Srebenica was a genocide but Gaza wasn’t a genocide. I doubt that even the worst neo-Nazi holocaust denier could match him.

On 2 February 2020, two months before Labour’s leadership election, I wrote a blog Keir Starmer is the candidate that the Deep State & the British  Establishment want you to vote for’ .

Unfortunately most Labour Party members weren't able to see through Starmer and his record as Director of Public Prosecutions when he persecuted Julian Assange and protected Jimmy Saville.

There is less excuse for Owen Jones who wrote an article for The Guardian 'Starmer can succeed, and he deserves our support.'  There really was no excuse for this as a cursory dive into his record as DPP would have shown he was fiercely reactionary and pro-Police and contemptuous of civil liberties.  I take no pleasure in once again being right but the reason why it was so obvious was that I looked beyond the sound bites and the wishful thinking to what Starmer's actual record was. And incidentally there was no excuse for being taken in by Starmer's nonsense about 'antisemitism' either, except that Owen Jones too had not yet seen the light.

However let it not be said that Starmer didn’t provide us with a certain amusement. The man who proclaimed his honesty and integrity ended up taking over £100,000 in freebies. The highest of any MP. Lord Ali provided him and his wife with thousands of pounds of clothes. Even her knickers were paid for by the generous Ali.

Starmer declared himself a ‘Zionist (i.e. racist) without qualification.’ And he told LBC that Israel had the right to starve the Palestinians of Gaza and cut off water and fuel, before denying he said it.

Starmer was so right-wing that even the anti-Semitic Prime Minister of Hungary, Viktor Orban, praised him.

Despite being a practiced liar Starmer was never very good at it. Indeed he was never very good at anything. His speeches were wooden, like a child trying too hard, with that squeaky voice which  told us he didn’t mean a word of it.

Starmer came to power via Labour Together as Paul Holden documented in The Fraud. He then rewarded the central players in the conspiracy, including Josh Simons and Morgan McSweeney. As soon as the heat became too much Simons abandoned him for Andy Burnham leaving Starmer high and dry. The irony is that Labour Together was anything but together.

Many people have commented on Starmer’s lack of personality or charisma. In a blog ‘Mogadon Man Assumes the Leadership of the Labour Party’ straight after he was elected Labour Leader I saw that Starmer’s personality was a reflection of his dishonesty.

To Starmer truth and lies were mere matters of convenience. All that mattered was choosing which was most beneficial. Starmer settled a libel action with Labour Party staff alleging ‘anti-Semitism’, even though they didn’t have a case, because he thought that that would ‘prove’ that Labour under Corbyn was anti-Semitic. The kind of trickery that lawyers regularly engage in.

Starmer’s lack of charisma was because he believed in nothing apart from his own personal advancement. Starmer was a human rights lawyer who didn’t believe in human rights.

It was no wonder that in his first speech as Labour leader all he could do was invent a story about his father. It was tedium magnified to listen to the same story about his toolmaker father who also owned the factory he worked in! Ironically Starmer’s dad was a Jeremy Corbyn supporter. He would have turned in his grave to see how his son turned out.

None of us know whether the rent boys who tried to set fire to Starmer’s house had something on him. Difficult as it is to imagine, there is clearly more to this story than meets the eye. And the one thing they were not is agents of Russia as the BBC tells us.

Still no one can say Starmer didn’t manage to achieve anything. He obtained the second highest Labour majority on the lowest vote for a majority government (34%), 6% less than Corbyn in 2017. Starmer even managed, as an incumbent Prime Minister, to secure a lower percentage of support in his own constituency in 2024 than in 2019. His majority was halved from 22,766 in 2019 to 11,572 in 2024.

Starmer expelled more Jewish members of the Labour Party ‘to combat antisemitism’ than all previous leaders combined. That’s like expelling people of colour to fight racism. He destroyed the left on a lie, he won power on lies & he resigned with more lies about his time in… https://t.co/BKNdDDJBTI

— Andrew Feinstein (@andrewfeinstein) June 22, 2026

Ironically this was because of the 7,312 votes of ex-ANC MP Andrew Feinstein, who besides being a Jewish anti-Zionist is, unlike Starmer principled.

However Starmer does have one achievement to his name. Starmer was the most hated and despised Prime Minister on record.

I won’t wish Starmer well in whatever new career he takes up because there are too many dead Palestinian children who might have lived but for him.

Contrary to the view of Mehdi Hassan in the interview with Owen Jones, I don't believe that Andy Burnham represents any fundamental change with Keir Starmer. He has already made his position clear that he doesn't believe there is a Genocide in Gaza.

It's not any surprise therefore that he has been given a warm welcome by the Israel Embassy front, Labour Friends of Israel. 

It is also reported that has had a blazing row with Starmer because he wants to increase 'Defence' i.e. War expenditure. If so we are  in for more of the same but with a smiling face .

I suspect that Burnham will have an equally short honeymoon to that which Starmer enjoyed or rather didn't enjoy. He supported the Iraq War and was a devoted Blairite. There is nothing left-wing about Burnham. His only virtue is not being Keir Starmer.

Tony Greenstein 

Andrew Windsor – The Real Question is Why he hasn’t Been Questioned by the Met – has Rape been Decriminalised?

The time has come for this dysfunctional family to be retired and Britain to become a Democratic Republic

It beggars belief that Andrew Windsor is innocent of the allegations made against him by Virginia Giuffre. Allegations which he strenuously denied in his disastrous interview with Emily Maitlis in November 2019. A child could work out that you don’t pay £10m+ to someone you don’t know.

Rape is having sex without consent.  A 17 year old girl who is being trafficked, i.e. not free to go, is not in a position to give meaningful consent. The question is why the Metropolitan Police haven’t interviewed her. It appears that the Met has a policy for the rich and powerful and another for us.

As I wrote at the time, the interview with Emily Maitlis was in the traditions of the BBC’s sycophantic coverage of all things Royal. It was a soft softball interview. Yet despite the reluctance of Maitlis to pursue obvious lines of inquiry, such as why he had spent 4 days with Jeffrey Epstein at his New York mansion and what he had done during that time, or why he didn’t avail himself of the hospitality of the British Embassy, it was a car crash interview.

The only mitigating factor for Andrew Windsor is that he must be incredibly stupid, even by Royal standards. How could he have ever thought that this interview would clear him? His own press spokesman resigned at the time after his advice had been disregarded. And yet the Queen, who had the power to prohibit the interview, did nothing. Clearly stupidity is a Windsor characteristic. Too much inbreeding!

Windsor’s explanations, his inability to sweat or the outing to the Woking Pizza Express, were widely derided at the time. Clearly his decision to settle, despite his bravado that he was looking forward to giving evidence, reflected the fact that these were brazen and pathetic lies. His assertion that he had benefited from being associated with Epstein caused widespread revulsion but we should bear in mind that standards in the Royal Family are not those of most people nor was it the only time that the Windsors have supported Establishment paedophiles.

Charles Windsor consistently supported Peter Ball, the ex-bishop of Lewes and Gloucester, who was found guilty of sexually assaulting two young men. Ball, was sentenced to 32 months in October 2015 for charges relating to 18 teenagers and young men between the 1970s and 1990s. He admitted one count of misconduct in public office and two counts of indecent assault relating to two young men.

The first police investigation into Ball, who died in June, was launched in 1992.  Despite there being an abundance of evidence to bring the case to trial, it was decided that Ball would get a "police caution" for gross indecency instead. The report found that one of the detectives working on the case was worried about the case going to trial due to Ball's mental state and the "devastating effect" it could have on the Church of England.

There was also an understanding that Ball would resign from his post, which he did. But just four months later, the then-Archbishop of Canterbury, George Carey, wrote to Ball about planning his "cautious return to ministry." Less than two years later, he was back to work with "no restrictions" — and was even allowed to be around children and young people unsupervised.

In June 2017 George Carey resigned from his last formal role in the church after Dame Moira Gibb's independent investigation found he covered up, by failing to pass to police, six out of seven serious sex abuse allegations relating to 17- to 25-year-olds against Bishop Peter Ball. In 2019 the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse [ICSA] confirmed Carey had discredited credible allegations of child sex abuse within the Church and failing to accompany disciplinary action with adding to the church's own safeguarding watchlist.

IICSA said Carey showed compassion to Peter Ball that was not extended to his victims, and displayed overt support for Ball’s innocence despite having no justification. The church’s response was marked by secrecy, prevarication and avoidance of reporting crimes.

The report spoke of “The damaging consequence of this overriding allegiance to one’s own ‘tribe’ was that child protection was compromised” in the Diocese of Chichester. Perpetrators, about whom there were allegations or even convictions, were provided with unrestricted access to children and young people.

Apologies given by Justin Welby, the present archbishop of Canterbury, and other senior church figures over the C of E’s failures were “unconvincing”. Alexis Jay, the inquiry’s chair, said:

‘For years, the diocese of Chichester failed victims of child sexual abuse by prioritising its own reputation above their welfare. Not only were disclosures of abuse handled inadequately by the church, its response was marked by secrecy and a disregard for the seriousness of the abuse allegations.’

Carey told the inquiry that he was “under great pressure” from Ball’s supporters. William Chapman, representing survivors, told the inquiry: “The story of Peter Ball is the story of the establishment at work in modern times.” Ball had been able to call upon the

George Carey - a nasty racist, Zionist and homophobe 

‘willing assistance of members of the establishment. It included the heir to the throne, the archbishop and a senior member of the judiciary, to name only the most prominent.’

Neil Todd, who made the first complaint against Ball to the police in 1992, killed himself in 2012 after several previous attempts.

A separate independent review of the Ball case, commissioned by the C of E and published last year, found evidence of collusion and a cover-up at the highest levels over a 20-year period. Peter Hancock, the bishop of Bath and Wells said:

‘The report states that the CoE should have been a place which protected all children and supported victims and survivors and the inquiry’s summary recognises that it failed to do this.... the church at all levels should learn lessons from the issues raised in this report.’

In order to demonstrate how much it had learnt its lessons in February 2018 Carey was granted permission to officiate by Steven Croft, the bishop of Oxford, allowing him to preach and preside at churches. This was revoked on 17 June 2020 as the church found Carey could have done more to pass to police allegations of historic beatings at schools and evangelical children's camps, by John Smyth. Permission was restored to Carey seven months later. 

As a result of publicity a second police investigation was launched in 2012, which resulted in Ball pleading guilty three years later to misconduct in public office and indecent assault and abusing a total of 18 teens and young men over a period of 15 years. He was released from prison in February 2017, after serving half of his 32-month sentence.

The scandal involving Charles Windsor arose as a result of his relationship with Ball between the first police investigation and Ball being reinstated in the church.

Windsor was among the many influential people in the UK that Ball formed friendships with, including Margaret Thatcher, senior judges, and headmasters at private schools, according to The Guardian.

He also is said to have often preached at Sandringham, one of the royal family's private estates.

In August 1994, Charles Windsor sent his private secretary to Lambeth Palace to inquire about Ball's status to the Archbishop's top aide. When he learned that Ball had still not been cleared to return to ministry in February 1995, he wrote to Ball saying "I wish I could do more."

"I feel so desperately strongly about the monstrous wrongs that have been done to you and the way you have been treated. It's appalling that the archbishop has gone back on what he told me, before Xmas, that he was hoping to restore you to some kind of ministry in the church. I suspect you are absolutely right — it is due to fear of the media,"

Charles wrote, in one of the many letters exchanged during their two-decade correspondence.

He even bought Ball a house to live in, using the Duchy of Cornwall (our money!) to purchase the property and then renting it out to Ball and his twin brother from 1995 to 2011.

An independent inquiry criticizes the Prince of Wales

After Ball's conviction, an independent inquiry into child abuse was launched into how the case was handled.

When the panel published their report they said "the actions of the Prince of Wales were misguided". In other words a slap on the wrist.

His actions, and those of his staff, could have been interpreted as expressions of support for Peter Ball and, given the Prince of Wales' future role within the Church of England, had the potential to influence the actions of the Church,

while Windsor said he

took no position on Peter Ball's return to ministry, he and his private secretary enquired about Peter Ball within Lambeth Palace. He should have recognized the potential effect that his apparent support for Peter Ball could have had upon decision-making within Lambeth Palace,"

But this should not be any surprise. The Queen herself has maintained close relations with the most abominable of her relations abroad such as King Hamad bin Isa al-Khalifa of Bahrain. As the Guardian reported in May 2019

The king regularly attends the prestigious five-day Royal Windsor horse show, which is a highlight in the Queen’s year. Pictures on Friday showed him meeting the British monarch and Prince Andrew, with the two heads of state laughing together as they watched the event.

Such is the closeness of the two monarchs that they have gifted each other horses from their respective stables; the king providing two to the Queen in 2013. The British monarch responded in 2017, giving him a horse in return.

The King maintains a veritable dictatorship in Bahrain which Britain has supplied with over £100 million of arms since 2011. Bahrain is a Sunni dictatorship ruling over a majority Shia population. The Arab Spring demonstrations in 2011 were met with murderous repression including Saudi Arabia despatching troops to put it down.

Doctors and nurse tending the wounded were themselves tortured. A report here gives further details on the unsavoury relations of the Queen

Elizabeth Windsor and the Sultan of Brunei

In May 2012 the Queen hosted a gathering of her unsavoury relations such as the Sultan of Brunei who introduced a law that included stoning to death for gays and those who commit adultery. It was only under heavy pressure that he was forced not to implement them (though one can never be sure).

So Andrew is not the Black Sheep of his family. Far from it. He is just the most stupid and brazen of the Windsors, a dysfunctional and parasitic family.

It is not however a question of the personal inadequacies of this inbred family. It is a question of democracy. No one would ever suggest that we should appoint hereditary mathematicians or poets. Why then do we still have hereditary heads of state?

The slavish loyalty of the BBC and unprincipled politicians like Starmer and Johnson to the monarchy has nothing to do with the ‘good’ job that Elizabeth Windsor performs. It has everything to do with the important political role that the monarchy plays in legitimising the British state. They are the symbol of the British state and the armed forces swear their allegiance, not to the people of Britain but the Queen in state.

As such the monarchy is a perpetual threat to democracy. If Corbyn had become Prime Minister, despite the hostility of the British Establishment and the threats of unnamed Generals, then it is quite feasible that a coup would have been launched, as it has in other countries, in the name of the Monarch.

The political function of the Royals is to serve as the icing on a poisonous cake. They represent the heart of an undemocratic state, with its unelected Lords. They are the face of privilege and perform the role of binding together the nation in obeisance to a myth. However rich or poor you are you can always identify with the ‘Royals’. The slavish and gushing coverage in the tabloid press aims at making them appear ‘human’ and one of us.

I prefer the advice of the revolutionary poet Percy Shelley who wrote in his Philosophical View of Reform (1820) that ‘Monarchy is only the string which ties the robber’s bundle.’  It is as true now as it was 200 years ago.

Tony Greenstein

After Corbyn What Next for the Left – Should Socialists Stay In the Labour Party?

The Labour Left Alliance Seems Determined to Repeat Every Mistake of the British Left in a Flickering Replay of the Past 50 Years I have been ‘Suspended’ for Dissent

Meeting at the Free Speech Centre at the Rialto during Labour's conference last September

The victory of Keir Starmer represents a massive political defeat for the Left. Anyone who believes it is just a passing episode or that we can bed down and live with him is fooling themselves. Starmer is a class enemy as surely is Boris Johnson.

Starmer is no ‘unity’ candidate. He is the candidate of a hard Right out for blood. When they say ‘anti-Semitism’ what they mean is what Joe McCarthy meant when he said ‘communism’. ‘Anti-Semitism is the new Communism’. Except there is no one around to do what Joseph Welch, the army prosecutor did, when he asked McCarthy ‘Do you have you left no sense of decency?"

Starmer is first out of the box to welcome my expulsion

Starmer is the man who prosecuted Julian Assange. He is the man who prosecuted women for making false allegations when their assailants were acquitted of rape, thus putting them through a second trauma. He is the man who protected Metropolitan Police officers who killed Ian Tomlinson. He is the man who was first to welcome my own expulsion. His membership of the shadowy Trilateral Commission, alongside war criminal Henry Kissinger and the late Jeffrey Epstein says all you need to know.

There will be a new and far more extensive witchhunt. According to Siobhan McDonagh anti-capitalism is anti-Semitic, presumably because being a Jew and a capitalist are synonymous! As the Zionist leaders stated 3 days ago:

Keir Starmer has already achieved in four days more than his predecessor in four years in addressing antisemitism within the Labour Party.

The clear and obvious question that poses itself is this: 

One good effect of Coronavirus is that the poisonous Jewish Chronicle has gone bust!

Is there a place inside the Labour Party for socialists?

There is no easy answer to this. One of the most remarkable things about the Corbyn phenomenon is how little it is understood by the Marxist left. This was why it came as much of a shock to the Left as the Right when Corbyn nearly won the 2017 General Election. My blog was one of the very few to have predicted it.

As the election campaign wore on I became convinced we would lose. My final article for Weekly Worker, Expect the Worst, Hope for the Best summed up my mood.  On the eve of poll, in Open Letter to Seamus Milne, I wrote that we were heading for ‘disaster’. 

Ed Miliband and friend

The Corbyn Phenomenon represented a mass upsurge against both the legacy of New Labour and the effects of 5 years of austerity. Ed Miliband’s austerity-lite policies offered no alternative. Anyone who remembers the Edstone and the mugs with Immigration Controls on them knew that he was no socialist. Yet he was still too left for Blair who spoke of how a “traditional left-wing party competes with a traditional right-wing party, with the traditional result”.

Despite trying to suppress the debate, the LLA's Facebook pages are filled with people saying they are going to resign from the Labour Party

Cameron won a small majority in the 2015 election due to the collapse in the Lib Dem vote, which allowed the Tories to gain a small majority with just 36.9% of the vote. This produced a popular reaction and wave of disillusionment which led to Corbyn’s election.

New Labour had become convinced that the way to permanently defeat the left was to open the leadership vote to every single member rather than having the trade union barons fix things.

Their solution was an American-style primary system whereby anyone, on payment of a fee, could vote. Blair and his acolytes had always wanted Labour to become another party of  capitalism like the American Democrats. Their assumption was that the Left would always be unpopular.

But the best laid plans of men and mice can go awry. Corbyn needed to gain 15% of the parliamentary Party, about 35 nominations. Many MPs, including the self-style ‘moron’ Margaret Beckett, ‘lent’ him their nomination in order that it could be shown that it was a genuine contest rather than a beauty contest between Corbyn and his opponents who all represented a continuation of New Labour. 

My own son, then aged 13 and thousands of others bombarded Labour MPs on social media with the demand that they lend Corbyn their nomination. The rest is history.  From 200-1 outsider Corbyn won by 60%.

When it became clear that Corbyn would win the flack began. At first there was a demand to stop the contest! We were told there were thousands of Trotskyist infiltrators. British Trotskyism would have difficulty filling a modest sized church hall. The whole point of having registered supporters was in order to allow non-Labour Party members to vote. It seems that they were the wrong kind!

Then began the attacks. John Mann accused Corbyn of having ignored child abuse in Islington care homes as MP. In fact the Leader of the Council at the time was Margaret Hodge who was a party to a deliberate cover up by the Council.

The ‘anti-Semitism’ campaign began with an article in August 2015 in the Daily Mail accusing Corbyn of having consorted with a holocaust denier, Paul Eisen. Soon after the now bankrupt Jewish Chronicle took over with a series of questions to Corbyn. Of course it didn’t want answers.

The LLA's refusal to discuss what is on the mind of its supporters is the height of unreality

We had the spectacle of the right-wing press and their Labour collaborators suddenly becoming interested in the fight against anti-Semitism. Of course all other forms of racism were kosher. The Sun and Mail even hired Katie Hopkins (‘refugees are cockroaches’).

Despite numerous warnings and articles by not only me but Asa Winstanley in Electronic Intifada (How Israel lobby manufactured UK Labour Party’s anti-Semitism crisis) and Jonathan Cook (Anti-Semitism. Orchestrated Offensive against Jeremy Corbyn in the UK) Corbyn was determined to appease his accusers. He even  accepted that to deny you are anti-Semitic is in itself anti-Semitic! Forgetting that he too had been so accused. Even when Jews were the victims of the anti-Semitism witchhunt he did not question it. The rest is history.

Daniel Platts of the SC seeks to exclude Chris Williamson from playing any part in relation to the LLA

Last February Chris Williamson MP was suspended after the vilest distortion of what he had said:

“The party that has done more to stand up to racism is now being demonised as a racist, bigoted party. I have got to say, I think our party’s response has been partly responsible for that because in my opinion… we’ve backed off far too much, we have given too much ground, we’ve been too apologetic… We’ve done more to address the scourge of anti-Semitism than any other party.”

Yet what did the ‘i’ and other papers do? They omitted any reference to the ‘scourge’ of anti-Semitism. In order to prove ‘anti-Semitism’ the mass media and the Zionists had to twist and distort everthing we said.

Alan Pearson of the OG supports my suspension

According to the Alan Pearson of the Organisation Committee, the Labour Party 'is a byword for antisemitism' - it is no accident that Pearson strongly supports my suspension since he goes along with a Zionist narrative

It was at this point, the very last stop on the journey, that Jeremy Corbyn should have spoken up and declared, unequivocally, that Chris was no anti-Semite.  And when a Labour Party Panel ruled that he should be reinstated Tom Watson raised a petition of right-wing Lords and MPs demanding resuspension, which was later ruled unlawful by the High Court.

This was literally last chance saloon yet Corbyn remained silent, throwing Williamson under the bus. In so doing he ensured that he would never become Prime Minister. Arguably the point of no return had occurred at the 2018 Labour Party conference when he was responsible for the defeat of Open Selection.

In response I wrote that this was the end of the Corbyn Project. Are these the Dying Days of Corbyn’s Leadership? And so it proved. The question is where we go from here.

Chris Williamson in Brighton at the meeting that the Zionists pulled out all the stops to prevent happening

Labour Left Alliance – Can It Fill the Gap

Around July last year, the Labour Left Alliance was launched by Labour Against the Witchhunt, the LRC and Red Labour with a statement which has now been signed by over 2,000 supporters. The conference took place in the context of a campaign by the Zionists to ban any all opposition.  ‘Israeli democracy’ had come to Britain.

In Brighton in the preceding summer the Zionists had made fevered attempts to stop Chris Williamson speaking. 3 venues were harassed or abused before we held a large open air meeting in Regency Square. You will note that the local Argus report pictures the dozen Zionists as being larger than over 150 people! For a full report see here.

Our reaction in Brighton LLA was to organise a Free Speech Centre in Brighton’s Rialto to ensure that the Zionists could not ban us.

For 2 days we put on a variety of events. There was Jackie Walker’s The Witchhunt, Chris Williamson, the LRC and even a book launch for Pluto’s Bad News for Labour which Waterstones cancelled at the last minute after receiving a volley of abuse and threats from the very people that Keir Starmer has got into bed with. As one of the 5 distinguished academics, Birkbeck’s Justin Schlosberg said this was book burning.  As Heinrich Heine predicted, they first burn books and then they burn people.

In the wake of this successful defiance of the Zionists the LLA held a meeting on the final day of the conference. I spoke at what was clearly a polarised meeting. It was clear that there were differences between LAW and the LRC as to where the LLA were going. The LRC and Red Labour later pulled out. I made two points. 

Firstly the LLA had very little time to get organised. It was clear an election was round the corner. Secondly knowing that Labour stood little chance of victory, the LLA must become an organisational bridge between the Left inside and outside the Labour Party.

Phil Pope fending off criticism

Chair Phil Pope equates political criticism with 'he did seem to be attacking the SC'

At the beginning of February 2020 I became the Brighton and Hove delegate to the LLA’s Organisation Committee nationally. My first proposal was that Chris Williamson MP should be invited to speak to the Conference on 22^nd February. I made the proposal twice. When I first raised it on 9^th February Lee Rock, the National Organiser opposed it. No one else commented and there was just 1 ‘like’. I raised it again on 12^th February. No one either supported or opposed it. A decision was taken not to invite Chris as ‘punishment’ for his standing at the election as a Socialist Independent. I still don’t know how or when this was decided.

Secretary Tina Werkmann defends my suspension by reference to LAW where I proposed the expulsion of Pete Gregson and Socialist Fight - she conveniently 'forgets' that the decision to expel was taken by All Members Meeting - not an unelected Steering Committee - Gregson defended linking up to a holocaust denier - a slightly different offence

I went to the AGM in Sheffield on February 22^nd. About 130 supporters attended, however it was extremely badly organised. On the surface it seemed fine but the decisions it took and the way debate was structured were disastrous. The morning was devoted to motions and general discussion. We had the absurdity of a pro-Brexit resolution being passed with one speaker for and one against. This is not serious politics. Instead of prioritising 2-3 issues and debating them fully we had a whole series of policies approved on the nod.

The afternoon was devoted to the Constitution. This was even worse. I moved an amendment on behalf of BH arguing that the LLA

‘needs to be a bridge between socialists inside and outside the Labour Party. It is essential that the LLA abandons the sectarian traditions of the Left which has contributed to the ongoing weakness of the socialist left.

The Conference Arrangements Committee instead of giving delegates a clear choice between different proposals decided instead to salami slice every proposal and stage the debate in sections. It meant no one had any idea of what the final constitution looked like, which was a dog’s dinner. 

For example whilst the Constitution included policies that should be debated separately, it also said nothing about the powers of the different bodies (such as the power to open a bank account or spend money) and did not specify who was sovereign.

The Constitution does not have any provision for disciplinary action (somewhat important in view of my suspension!).  And for an organisation which is claiming to be socialist it has no mention of socialism (or even capitalism) anywhere!

One member of the Organising Committee comparing their actions to Jon Lansman

On 21^st March I submitted a discussion discussion paper to the Organisation Committee [OG]. It began:

The history of the Left in Britain is a history of failure. Our past is littered with failed organisations and the husks of what were once considered bright ideas...

There needs to be a debate on the left as a whole as to our relationship to the Labour Party, what is possible for socialists within it and how best we build the Left.

I warned at the end that ‘To fail to reconsider sacred nostrums is the characteristic of a sect and sects have a habit of dying off.’

Reaction to my suspension from one member of the OG

The reaction of another member of the OG compares the situation unfavourably to Momentum!

Being naive I had hoped to stir up some discussion of where the LLA was going. Instead it went down like a lead balloon.  Lee Rock, the National Organiser, responded alleging various mistakes and calling me dishonest no less than 4 times. I responded to Lee’s paper two days later and Lee this time replied with an 11 page paper.

For those who are interested I have supplied the links. I followed this up, not with another response to Lee but a series of 9 proposals as Lee had repeatedly asked me to do.  I proposed that

1.     The LLA becomes a membership organisation as well as a federal organisation of affiliated branches....

2.     That the LLA has as its perspective both organising the socialist left inside the Labour Party and acting as a bridging organisation to those members who have resigned or been expelled.

Despite urging me to make concrete proposals my paper seemed to produce a personal crisis in Lee. He exploded, resigning and sending abusive messages. It was as if I was threatening his whole personality.

The dead cat strategy of the Tories has been adopted by the Steering Committee to avoid discussion

The Steering Committee which met on April 1^st decided, with no warning, to suspend me as a way of persuading Lee to retract his resignation, which he appears to have done (the membership not being informed of these things I can’t be certain). I responded alleging that Lee’s ‘resignation’ had been contrived with Tina, the Secretary. In order to forestall proper discussion of my proposals they had engage in a ‘dead cat strategy’ with Lee’s resignation.

Instead of deciding to discuss my proposals the SC referred them to the next conference which is in 6+ months time, if ever.

Lee Rock asks what has changed since February 22.  Err, Coronavirus lockdown. Election of Keir Starmer.  What more is needed?

The obvious point to make is we can’t wait. Thousands of people are resigning from the Labour Party now.  Any organisation worth its salt would be dealing with the problem NOW not in the distant future. If the LLA refuses to deal with what is the most serious issue facing us now then it is irrelevant. 

I responded to the SC on 4^th April but the main points were that:

1.     The SC had no power to suspended anyone, least of all a member of the body that appointed it (OG). That is such an obvious point that it really needs no explanation.

2.     The OG itself, being a network or federation, cannot suspend anyone. All they can do is ask the group they represent to send someone else.

3.     Since there is no membership, everyone is a supporter by virtue of signing the original statement, how can anyone be suspended or expelled anyway?

The nominal Chair, Phil Pope has responded by denying that suspension is a disciplinary action! Despite which I have been removed from not only the OG Facebook and WhatsApp groups but ALSO the LLA’s own Organisation and Discussion Facebook Groups by Daniel Platts, even though admission to these is by virtue of signing the statement not membership of the OG. 

In short the very constitution that these mini-dictators have been swearing loyalty to has been jettisoned at a moment’s notice!

It is clear that the LLA has nowhere to go and no strategy. While Starmer gets his act together do we just sit passively by whilst thousands of people exit the Labour Party or do we try to organise them? We seem to be saying, because of an ideological fetish, that if you aren’t in the Labour Party then you are irrelevant.

It is clear that the LLA has nowhere to go and no strategy for getting there. While Starmer gets his act together do we sit passively by whilst thousands of people exit the Labour Party or do we try to include them? We seem to be saying, because of an ideological fetish, that if you aren’t in the Labour Party then you are irrelevant and not wanted. 

The LLA is now a place where members feel free to tell other members that they don't belong - its called 'comradeship'

LACK OF A DEMOCRATIC CULTURE

What though is the underlying problem? How has it come about that submitting a discussion document ends up with my being suspended on trumped-up charges? Why is it that an organisation, whose founding statement states it ‘organises democratically and transparently’ and which ‘campaigns for a disciplinary process in the Labour Party which is wholly based on natural justice and due process’ suspends someone without them being either present or informed of what is happening and which simply disregards its own constitution? Is democracy only for the Labour Party?

In the internal correspondence following my submission of the document, I sent an email to Lee Rock of 23^rd March in which I wrote that the way the Committee was operating was ‘the antithesis of a healthy democratic culture.’ Another member Peter B made the same point writing that the LLA ‘requires a culture of open discussion and debate, which as ever should be conducted in a comradely manner.’

On the socialist left there is a long history of a  Command and Control Culture, going under the name of ‘democratic centralism’ which in practice is anything but democratic though it is certainly centralist.

One member of the OG, Peter Flack confessed to have being a full-time organiser for the Socialist Labour League/WRP, perhaps the most revolting organisation on the left, if it can even be called left. It was an organisation headed by one Gerry Healey, which engaged in systematic abuse of members, including rape and violence against members. Corin Redgrave, brother of Vanessa, infamously stated re Healey’s ‘accomplishments’ that “If this is the work of a rapist, let’s recruit more rapists.’

The SWP was also convulsed when the organisation tried to cover up allegations of rape and abuse by former Secretary Martin Smith. Although it was not on the scale of the WRP it was symptomatic of an underlying culture that had developed in the two largest so-called revolutionary organisations. A daughter of a friend, who worked at the SWP HQ, was summarily dismissed when she expressed her support for the women who had been raped. An article on the Socialist Unity website makes disturbing reading.

I am sure that Peter did not support Healey’s activities and probably was unaware of them. However he was a full-timer in an organisation which more resembled the mafia than a socialist organisation. It is no coincidence that Peter has been to the fore in opposing discussion and supporting summary justice.

Why do I raise this?  Because what was common to both the WRP and SWP was a lack of any democratic culture or accountability. What the behaviour of the majority on the OG represents is a continuation of this tradition and a total disregard not only for its own (inadequate) constitution but for the most basic of democratic norms.

Tony Greenstein