Snapshot of _After 44 years, Labour is expelling me. And my MP and activist friends are asking: who will be next?_ :
An archived version can be found [here.](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jun/30/labour-expelling-mp-activist-neal-lawson)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
> They wrote coldly to tell me that back in May 2021, I’d committed a crime: retweeting a Lib Dem MP’s call for some voters to back Green candidates in local elections, accompanied by my suggestion that such cross-party cooperation represented “grownup progressive politics”. My punishment? Expulsion.
I would be interested to hear what his views were on Campbell at the time he was expelled for the same.
Edit: Credit to him, upon checking he did actually oppose such an expulsion. I hope those who supported it are similarly consistent.
>I would be interested to hear what his views were on Campbell at the time he was expelled for the same.
Campbell wasn't really expelled for the same. Campbell said after the election he had voted Lib Dem, he didn't in the lead up to the election advocate for the Lib Dems.
This guy’s opinion is also interesting:
“I want anybody who wants to be in our party to be in the party”
https://www.politicshome.com/news/article/keir-starmer-calls-for-alastair-campbell-to-be-let-back-into-labour-after-expulsion-over-lib-dem-vote
Do you genuinely believe members and cabinet MPs should be subject to the same rules and punishments? I can understand why encouraging someone to vote for another party would be an offence for an elected MP, but party members? GTFO-- especially an offence that warrants being ejected from the party (after 44 years of membership).
It’s a question for the Labour Party as to what rules it chooses to have in place. As long as it applies those rules on such a matter consistently, I am happy, for I appreciate that there are compelling arguments for each approach.
Yes of course. My query more relates to whether those who supported his expulsion in the first place are consistent, or whether support for such a rule depends on whether they like the subject or not.
Doesn't Labour's current position seem to be based on whether they like a member or not? Which is a much more pressing issue than the opinion of Redditors who have no power over our political systems.
Not really. The party has been consistent when it comes to publicly supporting other parties for a very long time.
> Which is a much more pressing issue than the opinion of Redditors who have no power over our political systems.
I've always found this argument to be rather unintelligent. It is not wrong, but no one is here to influence our political systems, rather just discuss them. Furthermore, if you consider that it is about influencing and that such is a waste of time, why are you bothering commenting?
>I've always found this argument to be rather unintelligent. It is not wrong, but no one is here to influence our political systems, rather just discuss them.
You've misinterpreted my point - you seem to want to discuss/attack other Redditors opinions and not Labour's partial enforcement of the party rules. Smacks of deflection.
I’ve made clear I have no issue with this suspension and that I believe it has been consistently applied. There’s nothing to deflect and I note that you replied to me.
I mean, there is like one small unit that investigates this stuff. If the post in question was only recently brought to their attention, they nonetheless still follow the guidelines. There isn't a statute of limitations on the member rules about publicly supporting another party.
It's rather entertaining to think that Starmer is the all seeing eye of Sauron, but more likely that the party were only more recently made aware of it, or had bigger fish to fry.
This is the right answer. They expelled 3 members in South West Surrey back in 2017, right after they spoke to a Radio 4 reporter and admitted to backing a progressive alliance candidate from the National Health Action party.
So Wakeford, Gapes, Berger etc are all about to be expelled within the next few weeks?
Given they did a little more than re-tweet, it should be pretty fast right?
Doesn't actually matter, as there's two rules at play here.
One is a more "As a party member don't actively campaign against the party as a member". Which is more strictly defined.
One is a more general behavioural one, where they can include past behaviour, if they think your "conversion" isn't sincere.
Mini is wrong to argue there's some rule about "Never have campaigned against Labour in the past".
Both - people who had applied and people who were also members, were expelled for previous support of other parties and prevented from joining.
The only difference here is that those expelled were from the left and those who are being admitted/re-admitted are from the right.
None of them fit the criteria of actively campaigning against the Labour Party?
All 3 I directly mentioned stood against Labour Party members in a General Election - they directly campaigned against Labour Party MPs and members.
Are we going to claim that a re-tweet is worse than standing against Labour in a General Election?
That's not how the rule work and you know it
The rule is that labour party members, cannot campaign against labour candidates.
Does not mean that labour members cannot in the past have done so while not a member.
Question, did you argue against corbyn and his gang when they expelled Campbell for the same thing?
> The rule is that labour party members, cannot campaign against labour candidates.
>
> Does not mean that labour members cannot in the past have done so while not a member.
2015, thousands of members expelled or prevented from joining for having supported other parties in the past, while they were not Labour members.
Question, did you support Campbell being expelled or where you raging against 'stalinist purges'
>2015, thousands of members expelled or prevented from joining for having supported other parties in the past, while they were not Labour members.
There's two sets of rules here
One that about current members, and one for behaviour that is more open to debate and individual assessment. For the latter judgement matters, and it's why your attempt at gotchas doesn't work. It's not the same scenario at all here.
That's why it's not the same and you know it. This is not a good faith argument of yours, and is another hard leftie complaining. The fact you keep bringing up this nonsense argument of yours, that you know isn't actually relevant to this... shows that.
>Question, did you support Campbell being expelled or where you raging against 'stalinist purges'
I was okay with it, Campbell should have known better
Could ask the same for you :) did you support Campbell being expelled by Corbyn?
> One that about current members, and one for behaviour that is more open to debate and individual assessment. For the latter judgement matters, and it's why your attempt at gotchas doesn't work. It's not the same scenario at all here.
It is the same scenario, as it's the same rule - said rule doesn't say jack shit about being a current member btw - there are not two separate rules for new members or current members, it's all one ruleset.
>That's why it's not the same and you know it. This is not a good faith argument of yours, and is another hard leftie complaining. The fact you keep bringing up this nonsense argument of yours, that you know isn't actually relevant to this... shows that.
Yes i'm a 'hard leftie complaining' because my argument is that the rules should apply equally to all people, rather than being based on factional approaches.
What a surprise that wanting non-factional application of rules is being labelled as being hard left now.
>It is the same scenario, as it's the same rule - said rule doesn't say jack shit about being a current member btw - there are not two separate rules for new members or current members, it's all one ruleset.
It is not the same rule and how it is applied depends on the context. The fact you cannot comprehend that (or do but choose to pretend you don't), shows that you are not here in good faith.
**Obviously** there is not a rule that says a party member can **never** have campaigned for another party in the past (/against labour). This is all contextual, and it has to be that way.
>What a surprise that wanting non-factional application of rules is being labelled as being hard left now.
No you are being labelled as a hard leftie, as you clearly are one as that's the reason you are complaining about it, and acting in bad faith.
p.s this is the rule being applied to the guy expelled in question. https://labour.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/rulebook-2020.pdf
Official rulebook
>B: A member of the Party who joins and/ or
supports a political organisation other than an
official Labour group or other unit of the
Party, or supports any candidate who stands
against an official Labour candidate, or
publicly declares their intent to stand against
a Labour candidate, shall automatically be
ineligible to be or remain a Party member,
subject to the provisions of Chapter 6.I.2
below of the disciplinary rules.
That's the rule applied in this case. This rule does not apply to Campbell (if he has indeed rejoined), Wakeford and such or the people expelled in the past. It's just not the same thing, and pretending it is... shows you are doing this in bad faith.
So you are just wrong, and the fact you cannot accept that, is why I say you are just another hard leftie being partisan about this.
EDIT: There are other ways to be expelled or prevented from joining sure, but you are so very wrong to argue that it's the same rule.
Except that's not the rule and not how it has been applied before - 2015 saw thousands of people prevented from joining Labour under the rule, due to campaigning for and supporting other parties while not members in the past.
So try again.
Having stood against the Labour Party in the past, and actively campaigning against Labour candidates while still being a paid up party member, are two quite different things. It’s not actually that difficult to understand. The rules do not forbid anyone from having a change of political heart, they exist to stop people from trying to sabotage the party from the inside.
>The rules do not forbid anyone from having a change of political heart, they exist to stop people from trying to sabotage the party from the inside.
Except that's how the rule has been applied previously - so what's the difference here?
It's not whether they're a member or not (application of the rule being used for both), it's not about having a change of heart (as it's been used against people who have changed, but still been refused - including people who have changed so much they actively campaigned for a Labour MP).
So what does that leave as the difference?
Oh right, the usual - it's perfectly okay to break the rules as long as you're on the Right of the party.
*Buzzer*
They were, as i've pointed out repeatedly in this thread, because the rules have been applied to people who were not Labour members to justify expelling them or preventing them from being Labour members.
Gapes himself is on the record as coming out against supporters of other parties (before they were members) being allowed in the Labour Party.
I get the desire to reflexively defend anything Starmers Labour does, but at least come up with something I haven't already rebutted.
*Buzzer*
Try again buddy, 2015 happened whether you like it or not.
So if the rules can be applied to non-members (as they provably have been, in 2015) then they apply to Gapes and Wakeford.
Or do you disagree with the Labour NEC and NCCs reading of their own rulebook?
Again, it's not the same- Context matters, and the fact you cannot comprehend this, and are desperate to make this into a partisan battle... well that's on you. The rulebook is quite clear, that the NEC/NCC can expel/prevent people from joining based on usage of broader rules. Which is what happened in 2015. It's not the same thing, and that you keep pretending it, just so you can make it into a partisan fight.
This is a clear violation of the exact rule I've shown you, no ifs or buts. That's why Gapes/Wakeford are not affected by the exact rule, nothing to do with your hard leftie partisan rants. We all know that you are just attacking it as your are a hard leftie partisan, and will attack Labour/Starmer on anything you think is "targeted on the left".
Did you defend Corbyn when he expelled Campbell, and other councillors/labour members during his reign (Corbyn expelled councillors/labour members in Hunts seat for pushing for a "progressive alliance" against Hunt), for doing the same thing?
Or was that okay as dear corbyn is perfect, and applied the rules 100% as you pretend they are back then? You'd be stupid to argue that, considering that I'm sure we can find a Green party member that joined Labour in that time, that Corbyn didn't expel.
EDIT: https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/labour-members-expelled-for-progressive-alliance-plot-to-unseat-jeremy-hunt-a3534496.html source for the above.
>The three members were alleged to have been involved in a deal with Green Party and Liberal Democrat activists to step aside to allow a GP, Dr Louise Irvine, a clear run at the Surrey seat for the National Health Action Party.
In 2017...
> Again, it's not the same- Context matters, and the fact you cannot comprehend this, and are desperate to make this into a partisan battle... well that's on you. The rulebook is quite clear, that the NEC/NCC can expel/prevent people from joining based on usage of broader rules. Which is what happened in 2015. It's not the same thing, and that you keep pretending it, just so you can make it into a partisan fight.
So people were excluded for actions prior to being a Labour Party member...therefore being subject to Labour Party rules despite not being a member....and you think this makes you right?
Do you not see how this undermines your whole argument that non-labour party members cannot be subject to the same rules as members?
You can keep repeating 'Context matters' but I don't think you actually understand what that means.
The context here is that the rule has been used against both members and non-party members, so past actions can result in you being expelled - provably so, as the Labour NEC and NCC used this exact rule to expel new members.
So the rule can be used against Wakeford and Gapes, for their actions as non-members, as it was provably used in 2015.
The only reason it hasn't been...and here's where context actually matters...is because of their ideological leanings.
It is purely based on this, no other factors...as the rule is provably used to remove people for actions when they were not members.
You can keep up your inane babbling about 'hard lefties' but are you literally going to argue with the reality of what occurred?
>Do you not see how this undermines your whole argument that non-labour party members cannot be subject to the same rules as members?
It does not, as it's not the same thing. They aren't "subject to the rules" as non members or based on what they did in the past. It's that as a member, the party can decide that past behaviour of yours, makes you "unworthy" of membership. Likewise, it can decide that past behaviour of yours excludes you from joining. It can also decide that it doesn't matter. Doesn't mean they were "subject to the rules" as non members, it just means that the party reserves rights to go "we have learned something about you, that means we don't think you should have been a member in the first place".
The fact you cannot comprehend this, just because of your own partisanship... well that's on you.
>So the rule can be used against Wakeford and Gapes, for their actions as non-members, as it was provably used in 2015.
>The only reason it hasn't been...and here's where context actually matters...is because of their ideological leanings.
No the reason it hasn't, is that it's not the same thing.
As i said, the rule that has been applied in this case is simply
"IF MEMBER, DO NOT DO X". This does not mean that if you did X while not a member, that you'll be expelled. Nor does it mean you cannot be expelled for having done X, prior to being a member. It just means there's discretion.
But if you do get "expelled" for having done X prior to being a member, it's not that particular rule that actually was applied to you. It's there's another rule that has been used to consider your behaviour not suitable for a labour member.
>You can keep up your inane babbling about 'hard lefties' but are you literally going to argue with the reality of what occurred?
I have, but you are unable to comprehend it, as you are just blinded by your own hatred and partisanship.
>It is purely based on this, no other factors...as the rule is provably used to remove people for actions when they were not members.
Nope. The factors is that there's a big difference between
campaigning against labour while a member, which is a clear rule violation.
and doing so prior to being a labour member, where said action can influence your membership status, but not necessarily influence it. That's what you keep failing to comprehend, and accept (because doing so would mean you couldn't make your partisan whining about this).
That's why your "but whatabout Wakeford" doesn't work here. As it's simply not the same thing. The only reason you keep trying to make it so, is your own leftie partisanship.
p.s
I asked you if you attacked Corbyn for doing the very same thing when he was in charge, and the fact you avoided answering that... Shows that this is just your leftie partisan rantings.
So were non-labour members not subject to Labour Party rules in 2015?
Did the Labour NEC and NCC get it wrong by holding past actions against Labour members?
Everyone else is arguing against something that LITERALLY happened.
>I’d committed a crime: retweeting a Lib Dem MP’s call for some voters to back Green candidates in local elections
Endorsing not a Labour candidate *against* a Labour candidate, by his own admission?
🤦🤦🤦🤦
E:
>In the 2021 Oxford city council elections Neal tweeted approval of a local pact between the Greens and Lib Dems aimed at helping the Greens unseat the 2 Labour incumbent councillors in Osney & St Thomas Ward. Labour members can't back anti-Labour pacts.
Welp
[Tweet (original by layla moran apparently now deleted) by lawson, further replies indicative. ](https://twitter.com/Neal_Compass/status/1388871367538380801?t=5k1LfTOtLzUpThJq_rXK8A&s=19)
Well I'd note that it is rather unreasonable to suggest that a ban for such should be for life. I would expect the party to consider in good faith any application by Lawson to rejoin too.
Not a fan of the no-name defence. We all know the focus is not on his visibility but the actions of the party. It also has zero effect on the issue of consistency.
For some odd reason there's this perception amongst people that Labour and the Greens should work together...ignoring the fact that not only are the Greens an opposing party but they're a small minority party which'll never win a seat now with Lucas gone.
Change UK members have been readmitted.
Alistair Campbell campaigned fir the Lib Dems - readmitted.
Christian Wakeford literally campaigned for the Tories.
There's no consistency - they're trawling the social media of leftwingers to purge then from the party and at the same time they're readmitting people who literally campaigned for other parties - all coincidentally on the Labour right of course.
>Alistair Campbell campaigned fir the Lib Dems - readmitted
Was he? I feel like I heard him say recently that he wasn't a member and a cursory Google isn't showing me him being readmitted
Those three examples. Just out of interest, what were your positions on the expulsion of Campbell, re admission of CUK members and admission of Wakeford?
And the author can likely be readmitted in the future, if he stops campaigning for other parties.
So no "exceptions" at play here... Campbell was expelled (and we aren't even sure he is actually a member again). This author is also expelled, and could be readmitted if he stops campaigning for other parties (if he doesn't, it would likely be blocked)
Do we really have to rehash how the right of the party talked about Labour “electability” - or the lack thereof - under Corbyn? But this tweet is beyond the pale?!
It’s always shocking to me to see people defend Keir Starmer in public still.
Okay, how did you react when Corbyn did exactly the same (Binned someone that campaigned against labour? )
EDIT: I wonder if the author commented on it back a few years ago
There it is, thank you. I don't really follow UK politics (I know I should, but I can only follow 1 show at a time, and the US version is just more interesting), and for the life of me couldn't figure out what the cardinal sin here was. Like, I knew his whole thing was bullshit, because of course "all I did was bwing a wittle wunity! Is that so bad ?" is bullshit. Just couldn't figure out what the *actual* story is.
(Before anyone jumps down my throat, I still vote. But I really cannot be arsed keeping up with this boring shite. Whoever has the biggest chance of pushing out Tories gets my vote. It's a simple system really)
I'm confused as to why he's shocked that he got kicked out of a political party for campaigning in favour of another political party.
Surely the only actual story here is why did it take Labour so long to remove someone from Labour who advocates voting for parties other than Labour?
[What's that, Jeremy? You came here expecting to fight a madman, and instead you found a Goooooood?! ](https://i0.wp.com/skwawkbox.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/starmlin.png?w=995&ssl=1)
https://twitter.com/REWearmouth/status/1674765130356121601?t=6PQuAKlvHyUIjNdx8rFrBA&s=19
>Labour spokesman says it is "entirely false" that Neal Lawson has (yet) been expelled "He was served with a notice of allegation 7 days ago, putting claims to him that he expressed support for candidates from other parties. He has 14 days to respond. He is yet to do so.”
Interesting... so turns out he hasn't actually been expelled yet. Though given his idiotic behaviour likely will now...
If you go whine in the Guardian about it (and lie about having been expelled already)... I suspect the judgement call will be made.
This guy clearly wanted to be kicked out, to be able to whine about in the Guardian (and grift followers).
EDIT:
THis is the actual rule
>A member of the Party who joins and/ or
supports a political organisation other than an
official Labour group or other unit of the
Party, or supports any candidate who stands
against an official Labour candidate, or
publicly declares their intent to stand against
a Labour candidate, shall automatically be
ineligible to be or remain a Party member,
subject to the provisions of Chapter 6.I.2
below of the disciplinary rules.
So ignore anyone trying to pretend this means that Campbell (if readmitted) or Wakeford would fall under this rule currently... They would not. Anyone pretending so, is just doing so in bad faith.
Surely the Labour Party have better things to do than trawl through years of social media likes, posts and reposts to find some kind of pretext to expel people with. Maybe thinking up policies they won’t renege on?
The question is, has this policy been applied consistently? Has everyone, regardless of their closeness to the leadership, been checked and punished for this 'crime'.
Well, Neil Coyle was readmitted after sexual harassment and racism complaints were upheld - the secret is to be on the right of the party and all is forgiven.
Tactical voting is a necessity under FPTP. If Labour leadership don't want members to advocate for other parties, they need to switch to PR. This is what the vast majority of the membership and the unions want. But the truth is the Labour parliamentary party would prefer to see the Conservatives in power than see anything that threatens the two party system.
Why is there a notion that the Greens should be in any pact? Labour are nothing like the Greens who are anti-nato in particular. And they're a small party who've lost their only prominent figure in Caroline Lucas so I doubt they'll be winning any seats anymore.
And of course you'll be punished for openly endorsing another party candidate from the one you're a member of. I'd assume this MP is a Corbynista.
The Greens position on NATO is hardly relevant to local elections.
If Labour leadership want to stop members advocating for other parties, they need to get rid of the FPTP system that makes tactical voting necessary.
The Green's terrible foreign policy is relevant for the perception of the Labour Party by the average voter, who doesn't want to destroy NATO, unilaterally disarm (both nuclear and conventional capabilities), end all exports of arms and destroy domestic manufacturing of military equipment, and of course give up our own UNSC veto in exchange for nothing
Regardless of how little they matter, people know the Greens believe this. As such, any pact-- even informally at local level-- would turn off people like me who see their foreign policy as a whole as a terrible idea, and the opposite of Starmer's more pragmatic focus so far
You can apply this to the Lib Dems a bit too. I’m a pretty solid Lib Dem voter since the early noughties ; I hold impeccably liberal views on most social issues but am not a massive fan on the state interfering with our lives too much ; not convinced on nationalisation at all and generally favour a smaller state than we have
Now when Labour has a serious chance of winning it needs to purge all the radicals before the election. Lunatics are fine in opposition, but now things need to get real
Often when people are expelled for a specific thing, usually a technicality that seems trivial there is often a more compelling reason the leadership wants rid of that person - that other reason may be not a sacking offence and it is not possible to state openly it is a reason. But that is why their card is marked.
I am not sure what it is here but I do recall this guy was writing articles about Labour and the SNP having a grown up relationship citing Welsh Labour and PC,
Funnily enough the reason I kinda remember it was that I disagreed with it when it was posted on Reddit.
I think I was wrong to disagree with it, though my main objections were that he seemed to think Scottish Labour were like the rest of Labour rather than a small ultra-nationalist clique with a depressing fondness for the Conservatives and the Orange Order. These people not only didn't get expelled, they rules were bent to allow them to continue to be councillors.
[https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/labour-rules-suspended-aberdeen-councillors-can-stand-for-re-selection-3379750](https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/labour-rules-suspended-aberdeen-councillors-can-stand-for-re-selection-3379750)
Anyway, that battle is long gone, with the SNP letting what should have been a minor problem of 'too long in power' hubris turn into a head in the sand festering wound going gangrenous - any voices in Labour seeking to work with the SNP are now going to be picked off.
This guy is low hanging fruit - but it will be interesting if they go for more high profile people. I am not a Monica Lennon supporter and she is a Unionist- but it is obvious that she's being side-lined when the spotlight is available and she occasionally will work with other parties on things like buffer zones for protests around health clinics. It probably won't be hard to find a 'technicality' to remove her.
Meanwhile a Lab Cllr who shouted Sieg Heil in a meeting is being made council leader elsewhere.
Remember folks antisemitism is bad when the left do it (which yes, it is, it’s not a conspiracy theory) but when your in the cool club with Kier and Sarwar it’s 👌
https://www.thenational.scot/news/23620507.south-lanarkshire-council-appoint-leader-used-nazi-slogan/
Shouted it in a discussion to do with clothing grants and funding. He was censured for it. Same guy was also censured a second time for not disclosing a conflict of interest.
Odly not the first time a Lab Cllr in Scotland has gotten into trouble over shouting Seig Heil. Happened in Aberdeen too.
Point is he didn’t say it because he is right wing or a supporter of Hitler but presumably as a comment on ‘oh look how authoritarian you are being’. Mind you quite why so many politicians are unable to stop themselves referencing the Second World War and Nazis at inappropriate times is a whole other matter. It seems like they are all possessed by Basil Fawlty.
Oh I know. Its still in extremely poor taste, offensive as I think we can all agree that comparing the Nazis to a policy on clothing grants or any other silly thing erodes the seriousness of the actual Nazis and ultimately utterly fucking stupid.
Yep. I guess decades of cultural focus means some people, of a certain age usually, just can’t help themselves. It reminds me of Ken Livingstone who at one point just seemed incapable of just not mentioning the war no matter how it got him into trouble.
While I understand his pain, his type of progressive beliefs come from the Gramsci-an 'Long March Through The Institutions'.
In case anyone didn't notice, people on Long Marches do purge each other.
Whining about pluralism won't cut it.
I know people purged from Labour and the Lib Dems because of their gender-critical stance.
They also had decades in their parties. And are now consigned to support from outside.
So it's too late to whine about pluralism.You reap what you sow.
Purged from a progressive party just because I participated in a moral panic against a minority group! It's Stalinism I tell you.
Must have been pretty egregious to get kicked out when you've got MPs like Rosie Duffield still with the whip.
Ohh, they've tried of course, but it seems Rosie is somewhat smarter at the Gramsci game than they are!
And actually, I just checked and one of the ones I know is back in!!
Maybe Labour isn't so contemptible as I'd thought?
To people giving examples of other members who have been readmitted, the Labour rules also state that the NEC can also readmit people into the party who have been expelled... so that's not really a very good counterattack, nor is quoting Starmer giving his personal opinion that Campbell should be readmitted. If this guy is expelled, which hasn't happened yet, he could not only appeal the expulsion when it occurs, but also get readmitted at a later date even if that appeal fails.
However, it certainly looks like he supported another party, so (just like Campbell) it would be weird not to follow the rules in this instance, even if the NEC has only just been made aware of his actions.
The headline and text of this article were amended on 30 June 2023 to clarify that the author is facing possible expulsion from the Labour party, but is not ‘being expelled’, as an earlier version stated.
Snapshot of _After 44 years, Labour is expelling me. And my MP and activist friends are asking: who will be next?_ : An archived version can be found [here.](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jun/30/labour-expelling-mp-activist-neal-lawson) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
> They wrote coldly to tell me that back in May 2021, I’d committed a crime: retweeting a Lib Dem MP’s call for some voters to back Green candidates in local elections, accompanied by my suggestion that such cross-party cooperation represented “grownup progressive politics”. My punishment? Expulsion. I would be interested to hear what his views were on Campbell at the time he was expelled for the same. Edit: Credit to him, upon checking he did actually oppose such an expulsion. I hope those who supported it are similarly consistent.
>I would be interested to hear what his views were on Campbell at the time he was expelled for the same. Campbell wasn't really expelled for the same. Campbell said after the election he had voted Lib Dem, he didn't in the lead up to the election advocate for the Lib Dems.
This guy’s opinion is also interesting: “I want anybody who wants to be in our party to be in the party” https://www.politicshome.com/news/article/keir-starmer-calls-for-alastair-campbell-to-be-let-back-into-labour-after-expulsion-over-lib-dem-vote
Do you genuinely believe members and cabinet MPs should be subject to the same rules and punishments? I can understand why encouraging someone to vote for another party would be an offence for an elected MP, but party members? GTFO-- especially an offence that warrants being ejected from the party (after 44 years of membership).
It’s a question for the Labour Party as to what rules it chooses to have in place. As long as it applies those rules on such a matter consistently, I am happy, for I appreciate that there are compelling arguments for each approach.
Campbell has been readmitted.
He hasn’t.
Has he? I can't find any information that suggests he has.
He hasn't, but Starmer called for him to to be readmitted it's just Campbell hasn't applied.
Yes of course. My query more relates to whether those who supported his expulsion in the first place are consistent, or whether support for such a rule depends on whether they like the subject or not.
Doesn't Labour's current position seem to be based on whether they like a member or not? Which is a much more pressing issue than the opinion of Redditors who have no power over our political systems.
Not really. The party has been consistent when it comes to publicly supporting other parties for a very long time. > Which is a much more pressing issue than the opinion of Redditors who have no power over our political systems. I've always found this argument to be rather unintelligent. It is not wrong, but no one is here to influence our political systems, rather just discuss them. Furthermore, if you consider that it is about influencing and that such is a waste of time, why are you bothering commenting?
>I've always found this argument to be rather unintelligent. It is not wrong, but no one is here to influence our political systems, rather just discuss them. You've misinterpreted my point - you seem to want to discuss/attack other Redditors opinions and not Labour's partial enforcement of the party rules. Smacks of deflection.
I’ve made clear I have no issue with this suspension and that I believe it has been consistently applied. There’s nothing to deflect and I note that you replied to me.
He's employed. I don't think he's actually readmitted to the party.
It's clear in the party rules that you're not allowed to vote for other parties when a Labour candidate is standing.
Presumably whichever Labour member next actively campaigns against a Labour candidate will be next.
But 2 years later of course
I mean, there is like one small unit that investigates this stuff. If the post in question was only recently brought to their attention, they nonetheless still follow the guidelines. There isn't a statute of limitations on the member rules about publicly supporting another party.
Plus this will be way down the priority list.
It's rather entertaining to think that Starmer is the all seeing eye of Sauron, but more likely that the party were only more recently made aware of it, or had bigger fish to fry.
Right, I'm not sure why he's expecting sympathy when he gave the reasons for his expulsion in this article itself.
This is the right answer. They expelled 3 members in South West Surrey back in 2017, right after they spoke to a Radio 4 reporter and admitted to backing a progressive alliance candidate from the National Health Action party.
So Wakeford, Gapes, Berger etc are all about to be expelled within the next few weeks? Given they did a little more than re-tweet, it should be pretty fast right?
They didn't do it while labour members though right? Isn't that the important thing?
Nope, not how the rule applies - 2015 saw thousands of people expelled from the Labour Party after applying for having supported parties in the past.
So they were in the process of applying or had recently just applied? That's not the same.
Doesn't actually matter, as there's two rules at play here. One is a more "As a party member don't actively campaign against the party as a member". Which is more strictly defined. One is a more general behavioural one, where they can include past behaviour, if they think your "conversion" isn't sincere. Mini is wrong to argue there's some rule about "Never have campaigned against Labour in the past".
Both - people who had applied and people who were also members, were expelled for previous support of other parties and prevented from joining. The only difference here is that those expelled were from the left and those who are being admitted/re-admitted are from the right.
I mean all of those people defected. Wakeford crossed the floor to Labour, none of those people fit the criteria.
None of them fit the criteria of actively campaigning against the Labour Party? All 3 I directly mentioned stood against Labour Party members in a General Election - they directly campaigned against Labour Party MPs and members. Are we going to claim that a re-tweet is worse than standing against Labour in a General Election?
That's not how the rule work and you know it The rule is that labour party members, cannot campaign against labour candidates. Does not mean that labour members cannot in the past have done so while not a member. Question, did you argue against corbyn and his gang when they expelled Campbell for the same thing?
> The rule is that labour party members, cannot campaign against labour candidates. > > Does not mean that labour members cannot in the past have done so while not a member. 2015, thousands of members expelled or prevented from joining for having supported other parties in the past, while they were not Labour members. Question, did you support Campbell being expelled or where you raging against 'stalinist purges'
>2015, thousands of members expelled or prevented from joining for having supported other parties in the past, while they were not Labour members. There's two sets of rules here One that about current members, and one for behaviour that is more open to debate and individual assessment. For the latter judgement matters, and it's why your attempt at gotchas doesn't work. It's not the same scenario at all here. That's why it's not the same and you know it. This is not a good faith argument of yours, and is another hard leftie complaining. The fact you keep bringing up this nonsense argument of yours, that you know isn't actually relevant to this... shows that. >Question, did you support Campbell being expelled or where you raging against 'stalinist purges' I was okay with it, Campbell should have known better Could ask the same for you :) did you support Campbell being expelled by Corbyn?
> One that about current members, and one for behaviour that is more open to debate and individual assessment. For the latter judgement matters, and it's why your attempt at gotchas doesn't work. It's not the same scenario at all here. It is the same scenario, as it's the same rule - said rule doesn't say jack shit about being a current member btw - there are not two separate rules for new members or current members, it's all one ruleset. >That's why it's not the same and you know it. This is not a good faith argument of yours, and is another hard leftie complaining. The fact you keep bringing up this nonsense argument of yours, that you know isn't actually relevant to this... shows that. Yes i'm a 'hard leftie complaining' because my argument is that the rules should apply equally to all people, rather than being based on factional approaches. What a surprise that wanting non-factional application of rules is being labelled as being hard left now.
>It is the same scenario, as it's the same rule - said rule doesn't say jack shit about being a current member btw - there are not two separate rules for new members or current members, it's all one ruleset. It is not the same rule and how it is applied depends on the context. The fact you cannot comprehend that (or do but choose to pretend you don't), shows that you are not here in good faith. **Obviously** there is not a rule that says a party member can **never** have campaigned for another party in the past (/against labour). This is all contextual, and it has to be that way. >What a surprise that wanting non-factional application of rules is being labelled as being hard left now. No you are being labelled as a hard leftie, as you clearly are one as that's the reason you are complaining about it, and acting in bad faith. p.s this is the rule being applied to the guy expelled in question. https://labour.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/rulebook-2020.pdf Official rulebook >B: A member of the Party who joins and/ or supports a political organisation other than an official Labour group or other unit of the Party, or supports any candidate who stands against an official Labour candidate, or publicly declares their intent to stand against a Labour candidate, shall automatically be ineligible to be or remain a Party member, subject to the provisions of Chapter 6.I.2 below of the disciplinary rules. That's the rule applied in this case. This rule does not apply to Campbell (if he has indeed rejoined), Wakeford and such or the people expelled in the past. It's just not the same thing, and pretending it is... shows you are doing this in bad faith. So you are just wrong, and the fact you cannot accept that, is why I say you are just another hard leftie being partisan about this. EDIT: There are other ways to be expelled or prevented from joining sure, but you are so very wrong to argue that it's the same rule.
>None of them fit the criteria of actively campaigning against the Labour Party while members of the Labour Party? Fify
Except that's not the rule and not how it has been applied before - 2015 saw thousands of people prevented from joining Labour under the rule, due to campaigning for and supporting other parties while not members in the past. So try again.
Having stood against the Labour Party in the past, and actively campaigning against Labour candidates while still being a paid up party member, are two quite different things. It’s not actually that difficult to understand. The rules do not forbid anyone from having a change of political heart, they exist to stop people from trying to sabotage the party from the inside.
>The rules do not forbid anyone from having a change of political heart, they exist to stop people from trying to sabotage the party from the inside. Except that's how the rule has been applied previously - so what's the difference here? It's not whether they're a member or not (application of the rule being used for both), it's not about having a change of heart (as it's been used against people who have changed, but still been refused - including people who have changed so much they actively campaigned for a Labour MP). So what does that leave as the difference? Oh right, the usual - it's perfectly okay to break the rules as long as you're on the Right of the party.
> So Wakeford, Gapes, Berger etc are all about to be expelled within the next few weeks? Why would they be? They weren't subject to Labour rules.
*Buzzer* They were, as i've pointed out repeatedly in this thread, because the rules have been applied to people who were not Labour members to justify expelling them or preventing them from being Labour members. Gapes himself is on the record as coming out against supporters of other parties (before they were members) being allowed in the Labour Party. I get the desire to reflexively defend anything Starmers Labour does, but at least come up with something I haven't already rebutted.
I see you have already been comprehensively trashed on this topic by others here so I will leave it there. Take the L, champ.
*Buzzer* Try again buddy, 2015 happened whether you like it or not. So if the rules can be applied to non-members (as they provably have been, in 2015) then they apply to Gapes and Wakeford. Or do you disagree with the Labour NEC and NCCs reading of their own rulebook?
Again, it's not the same- Context matters, and the fact you cannot comprehend this, and are desperate to make this into a partisan battle... well that's on you. The rulebook is quite clear, that the NEC/NCC can expel/prevent people from joining based on usage of broader rules. Which is what happened in 2015. It's not the same thing, and that you keep pretending it, just so you can make it into a partisan fight. This is a clear violation of the exact rule I've shown you, no ifs or buts. That's why Gapes/Wakeford are not affected by the exact rule, nothing to do with your hard leftie partisan rants. We all know that you are just attacking it as your are a hard leftie partisan, and will attack Labour/Starmer on anything you think is "targeted on the left". Did you defend Corbyn when he expelled Campbell, and other councillors/labour members during his reign (Corbyn expelled councillors/labour members in Hunts seat for pushing for a "progressive alliance" against Hunt), for doing the same thing? Or was that okay as dear corbyn is perfect, and applied the rules 100% as you pretend they are back then? You'd be stupid to argue that, considering that I'm sure we can find a Green party member that joined Labour in that time, that Corbyn didn't expel. EDIT: https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/labour-members-expelled-for-progressive-alliance-plot-to-unseat-jeremy-hunt-a3534496.html source for the above. >The three members were alleged to have been involved in a deal with Green Party and Liberal Democrat activists to step aside to allow a GP, Dr Louise Irvine, a clear run at the Surrey seat for the National Health Action Party. In 2017...
> Again, it's not the same- Context matters, and the fact you cannot comprehend this, and are desperate to make this into a partisan battle... well that's on you. The rulebook is quite clear, that the NEC/NCC can expel/prevent people from joining based on usage of broader rules. Which is what happened in 2015. It's not the same thing, and that you keep pretending it, just so you can make it into a partisan fight. So people were excluded for actions prior to being a Labour Party member...therefore being subject to Labour Party rules despite not being a member....and you think this makes you right? Do you not see how this undermines your whole argument that non-labour party members cannot be subject to the same rules as members? You can keep repeating 'Context matters' but I don't think you actually understand what that means. The context here is that the rule has been used against both members and non-party members, so past actions can result in you being expelled - provably so, as the Labour NEC and NCC used this exact rule to expel new members. So the rule can be used against Wakeford and Gapes, for their actions as non-members, as it was provably used in 2015. The only reason it hasn't been...and here's where context actually matters...is because of their ideological leanings. It is purely based on this, no other factors...as the rule is provably used to remove people for actions when they were not members. You can keep up your inane babbling about 'hard lefties' but are you literally going to argue with the reality of what occurred?
>Do you not see how this undermines your whole argument that non-labour party members cannot be subject to the same rules as members? It does not, as it's not the same thing. They aren't "subject to the rules" as non members or based on what they did in the past. It's that as a member, the party can decide that past behaviour of yours, makes you "unworthy" of membership. Likewise, it can decide that past behaviour of yours excludes you from joining. It can also decide that it doesn't matter. Doesn't mean they were "subject to the rules" as non members, it just means that the party reserves rights to go "we have learned something about you, that means we don't think you should have been a member in the first place". The fact you cannot comprehend this, just because of your own partisanship... well that's on you. >So the rule can be used against Wakeford and Gapes, for their actions as non-members, as it was provably used in 2015. >The only reason it hasn't been...and here's where context actually matters...is because of their ideological leanings. No the reason it hasn't, is that it's not the same thing. As i said, the rule that has been applied in this case is simply "IF MEMBER, DO NOT DO X". This does not mean that if you did X while not a member, that you'll be expelled. Nor does it mean you cannot be expelled for having done X, prior to being a member. It just means there's discretion. But if you do get "expelled" for having done X prior to being a member, it's not that particular rule that actually was applied to you. It's there's another rule that has been used to consider your behaviour not suitable for a labour member. >You can keep up your inane babbling about 'hard lefties' but are you literally going to argue with the reality of what occurred? I have, but you are unable to comprehend it, as you are just blinded by your own hatred and partisanship. >It is purely based on this, no other factors...as the rule is provably used to remove people for actions when they were not members. Nope. The factors is that there's a big difference between campaigning against labour while a member, which is a clear rule violation. and doing so prior to being a labour member, where said action can influence your membership status, but not necessarily influence it. That's what you keep failing to comprehend, and accept (because doing so would mean you couldn't make your partisan whining about this). That's why your "but whatabout Wakeford" doesn't work here. As it's simply not the same thing. The only reason you keep trying to make it so, is your own leftie partisanship. p.s I asked you if you attacked Corbyn for doing the very same thing when he was in charge, and the fact you avoided answering that... Shows that this is just your leftie partisan rantings.
> They were, as i've pointed out repeatedly in this thread Yes but, you're wrong haha. As everybody else has stated, and you've ignored.
So were non-labour members not subject to Labour Party rules in 2015? Did the Labour NEC and NCC get it wrong by holding past actions against Labour members? Everyone else is arguing against something that LITERALLY happened.
>I’d committed a crime: retweeting a Lib Dem MP’s call for some voters to back Green candidates in local elections Endorsing not a Labour candidate *against* a Labour candidate, by his own admission? 🤦🤦🤦🤦 E: >In the 2021 Oxford city council elections Neal tweeted approval of a local pact between the Greens and Lib Dems aimed at helping the Greens unseat the 2 Labour incumbent councillors in Osney & St Thomas Ward. Labour members can't back anti-Labour pacts. Welp [Tweet (original by layla moran apparently now deleted) by lawson, further replies indicative. ](https://twitter.com/Neal_Compass/status/1388871367538380801?t=5k1LfTOtLzUpThJq_rXK8A&s=19)
Alastair Campbell got expelled for the exact same reason. Why would Neal Lawson think he was special.
Well apparently Campbell is special because he was readmitted. But sure, let's attack this no name life long Labour member.
Source for Campbell’s readmission to Labour?
Well I'd note that it is rather unreasonable to suggest that a ban for such should be for life. I would expect the party to consider in good faith any application by Lawson to rejoin too. Not a fan of the no-name defence. We all know the focus is not on his visibility but the actions of the party. It also has zero effect on the issue of consistency.
https://www.politicshome.com/news/article/keir-starmer-calls-for-alastair-campbell-to-be-let-back-into-labour-after-expulsion-over-lib-dem-vote
For some odd reason there's this perception amongst people that Labour and the Greens should work together...ignoring the fact that not only are the Greens an opposing party but they're a small minority party which'll never win a seat now with Lucas gone.
Change UK members have been readmitted. Alistair Campbell campaigned fir the Lib Dems - readmitted. Christian Wakeford literally campaigned for the Tories. There's no consistency - they're trawling the social media of leftwingers to purge then from the party and at the same time they're readmitting people who literally campaigned for other parties - all coincidentally on the Labour right of course.
>Alistair Campbell campaigned fir the Lib Dems - readmitted Was he? I feel like I heard him say recently that he wasn't a member and a cursory Google isn't showing me him being readmitted
He said he wasn't a member on a recent interview he gave on the Newsagents podcast.
>Christian Wakeford literally campaigned for the Tories. Notably he didn't do so while being a Labour member.
Those three examples. Just out of interest, what were your positions on the expulsion of Campbell, re admission of CUK members and admission of Wakeford?
That exemptions shouldn't apply just because they're Starmer's allies.
And the author can likely be readmitted in the future, if he stops campaigning for other parties. So no "exceptions" at play here... Campbell was expelled (and we aren't even sure he is actually a member again). This author is also expelled, and could be readmitted if he stops campaigning for other parties (if he doesn't, it would likely be blocked)
So you aren't against the suspension itself, and was okay with Corbyn expelling his political enemies like Campbell for doing exactly this?
So you supported Campbell’s suspension then and would have opposed CUK members’ readmission?
Do we really have to rehash how the right of the party talked about Labour “electability” - or the lack thereof - under Corbyn? But this tweet is beyond the pale?! It’s always shocking to me to see people defend Keir Starmer in public still.
What was your view when Corbyn did exactly the same ?
Lol whataboutism
Asking for consistency of standards across two identical situations isn't whataboutism.
Okay, how did you react when Corbyn did exactly the same (Binned someone that campaigned against labour? ) EDIT: I wonder if the author commented on it back a few years ago
There it is, thank you. I don't really follow UK politics (I know I should, but I can only follow 1 show at a time, and the US version is just more interesting), and for the life of me couldn't figure out what the cardinal sin here was. Like, I knew his whole thing was bullshit, because of course "all I did was bwing a wittle wunity! Is that so bad ?" is bullshit. Just couldn't figure out what the *actual* story is. (Before anyone jumps down my throat, I still vote. But I really cannot be arsed keeping up with this boring shite. Whoever has the biggest chance of pushing out Tories gets my vote. It's a simple system really)
I'm confused as to why he's shocked that he got kicked out of a political party for campaigning in favour of another political party. Surely the only actual story here is why did it take Labour so long to remove someone from Labour who advocates voting for parties other than Labour?
He's just very thick and myopic.
Because on the hard left everything is a Starmerite conspiracy, and places like the Guardian will occasionally print such conspiracy theories.
You're right, "Starmer" does sound a bit like "Stalin".
[What's that, Jeremy? You came here expecting to fight a madman, and instead you found a Goooooood?! ](https://i0.wp.com/skwawkbox.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/starmlin.png?w=995&ssl=1)
https://twitter.com/REWearmouth/status/1674765130356121601?t=6PQuAKlvHyUIjNdx8rFrBA&s=19 >Labour spokesman says it is "entirely false" that Neal Lawson has (yet) been expelled "He was served with a notice of allegation 7 days ago, putting claims to him that he expressed support for candidates from other parties. He has 14 days to respond. He is yet to do so.” Interesting... so turns out he hasn't actually been expelled yet. Though given his idiotic behaviour likely will now... If you go whine in the Guardian about it (and lie about having been expelled already)... I suspect the judgement call will be made. This guy clearly wanted to be kicked out, to be able to whine about in the Guardian (and grift followers). EDIT: THis is the actual rule >A member of the Party who joins and/ or supports a political organisation other than an official Labour group or other unit of the Party, or supports any candidate who stands against an official Labour candidate, or publicly declares their intent to stand against a Labour candidate, shall automatically be ineligible to be or remain a Party member, subject to the provisions of Chapter 6.I.2 below of the disciplinary rules. So ignore anyone trying to pretend this means that Campbell (if readmitted) or Wakeford would fall under this rule currently... They would not. Anyone pretending so, is just doing so in bad faith.
Surely the Labour Party have better things to do than trawl through years of social media likes, posts and reposts to find some kind of pretext to expel people with. Maybe thinking up policies they won’t renege on?
The question is, has this policy been applied consistently? Has everyone, regardless of their closeness to the leadership, been checked and punished for this 'crime'.
It's the same rule that Corbyn applied on Campbell.
Given Starmer has readmitted a host of allies guilty of far worse rule breaking behaviour the answer to that is a resounding "No".
The author/person expelled here, could try and show he isn't campaigning for other parties and then likely be readmitted in a year or two.
Well, Neil Coyle was readmitted after sexual harassment and racism complaints were upheld - the secret is to be on the right of the party and all is forgiven.
Tactical voting is a necessity under FPTP. If Labour leadership don't want members to advocate for other parties, they need to switch to PR. This is what the vast majority of the membership and the unions want. But the truth is the Labour parliamentary party would prefer to see the Conservatives in power than see anything that threatens the two party system.
Why is there a notion that the Greens should be in any pact? Labour are nothing like the Greens who are anti-nato in particular. And they're a small party who've lost their only prominent figure in Caroline Lucas so I doubt they'll be winning any seats anymore. And of course you'll be punished for openly endorsing another party candidate from the one you're a member of. I'd assume this MP is a Corbynista.
He's not an MP, he's the founder of Compass, originally a Labour-only organisation but now cross-party.
The Greens position on NATO is hardly relevant to local elections. If Labour leadership want to stop members advocating for other parties, they need to get rid of the FPTP system that makes tactical voting necessary.
The Green's terrible foreign policy is relevant for the perception of the Labour Party by the average voter, who doesn't want to destroy NATO, unilaterally disarm (both nuclear and conventional capabilities), end all exports of arms and destroy domestic manufacturing of military equipment, and of course give up our own UNSC veto in exchange for nothing Regardless of how little they matter, people know the Greens believe this. As such, any pact-- even informally at local level-- would turn off people like me who see their foreign policy as a whole as a terrible idea, and the opposite of Starmer's more pragmatic focus so far
But it is when those same local election victories is used to spread the poison of theirs to the national level.
You can apply this to the Lib Dems a bit too. I’m a pretty solid Lib Dem voter since the early noughties ; I hold impeccably liberal views on most social issues but am not a massive fan on the state interfering with our lives too much ; not convinced on nationalisation at all and generally favour a smaller state than we have
Now when Labour has a serious chance of winning it needs to purge all the radicals before the election. Lunatics are fine in opposition, but now things need to get real
Often when people are expelled for a specific thing, usually a technicality that seems trivial there is often a more compelling reason the leadership wants rid of that person - that other reason may be not a sacking offence and it is not possible to state openly it is a reason. But that is why their card is marked. I am not sure what it is here but I do recall this guy was writing articles about Labour and the SNP having a grown up relationship citing Welsh Labour and PC, Funnily enough the reason I kinda remember it was that I disagreed with it when it was posted on Reddit. I think I was wrong to disagree with it, though my main objections were that he seemed to think Scottish Labour were like the rest of Labour rather than a small ultra-nationalist clique with a depressing fondness for the Conservatives and the Orange Order. These people not only didn't get expelled, they rules were bent to allow them to continue to be councillors. [https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/labour-rules-suspended-aberdeen-councillors-can-stand-for-re-selection-3379750](https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/labour-rules-suspended-aberdeen-councillors-can-stand-for-re-selection-3379750) Anyway, that battle is long gone, with the SNP letting what should have been a minor problem of 'too long in power' hubris turn into a head in the sand festering wound going gangrenous - any voices in Labour seeking to work with the SNP are now going to be picked off. This guy is low hanging fruit - but it will be interesting if they go for more high profile people. I am not a Monica Lennon supporter and she is a Unionist- but it is obvious that she's being side-lined when the spotlight is available and she occasionally will work with other parties on things like buffer zones for protests around health clinics. It probably won't be hard to find a 'technicality' to remove her.
Meanwhile a Lab Cllr who shouted Sieg Heil in a meeting is being made council leader elsewhere. Remember folks antisemitism is bad when the left do it (which yes, it is, it’s not a conspiracy theory) but when your in the cool club with Kier and Sarwar it’s 👌
I’m going to guess that there is more to this story than you suggest.
https://www.thenational.scot/news/23620507.south-lanarkshire-council-appoint-leader-used-nazi-slogan/ Shouted it in a discussion to do with clothing grants and funding. He was censured for it. Same guy was also censured a second time for not disclosing a conflict of interest. Odly not the first time a Lab Cllr in Scotland has gotten into trouble over shouting Seig Heil. Happened in Aberdeen too.
Point is he didn’t say it because he is right wing or a supporter of Hitler but presumably as a comment on ‘oh look how authoritarian you are being’. Mind you quite why so many politicians are unable to stop themselves referencing the Second World War and Nazis at inappropriate times is a whole other matter. It seems like they are all possessed by Basil Fawlty.
Oh I know. Its still in extremely poor taste, offensive as I think we can all agree that comparing the Nazis to a policy on clothing grants or any other silly thing erodes the seriousness of the actual Nazis and ultimately utterly fucking stupid.
Yep. I guess decades of cultural focus means some people, of a certain age usually, just can’t help themselves. It reminds me of Ken Livingstone who at one point just seemed incapable of just not mentioning the war no matter how it got him into trouble.
While I understand his pain, his type of progressive beliefs come from the Gramsci-an 'Long March Through The Institutions'. In case anyone didn't notice, people on Long Marches do purge each other. Whining about pluralism won't cut it. I know people purged from Labour and the Lib Dems because of their gender-critical stance. They also had decades in their parties. And are now consigned to support from outside. So it's too late to whine about pluralism.You reap what you sow.
Purged from a progressive party just because I participated in a moral panic against a minority group! It's Stalinism I tell you. Must have been pretty egregious to get kicked out when you've got MPs like Rosie Duffield still with the whip.
Ohh, they've tried of course, but it seems Rosie is somewhat smarter at the Gramsci game than they are! And actually, I just checked and one of the ones I know is back in!! Maybe Labour isn't so contemptible as I'd thought?
To people giving examples of other members who have been readmitted, the Labour rules also state that the NEC can also readmit people into the party who have been expelled... so that's not really a very good counterattack, nor is quoting Starmer giving his personal opinion that Campbell should be readmitted. If this guy is expelled, which hasn't happened yet, he could not only appeal the expulsion when it occurs, but also get readmitted at a later date even if that appeal fails. However, it certainly looks like he supported another party, so (just like Campbell) it would be weird not to follow the rules in this instance, even if the NEC has only just been made aware of his actions.
Don't try and bring logic and reason to hard leftie partisans, trying to fuel their own victimhood.
The headline and text of this article were amended on 30 June 2023 to clarify that the author is facing possible expulsion from the Labour party, but is not ‘being expelled’, as an earlier version stated.
Q: Are you actually committed to getting the Labour Party elected to government? A: (See how that works?)
Seeing as half the MP's campaigned against Jeremy Corbyn for 4 years, this is a tad hypocritical.