Error message

Deprecated function: The each() function is deprecated. This message will be suppressed on further calls in _menu_load_objects() (line 579 of /var/www/drupal-7.x/includes/

There are none so good as Labour MPs when it comes to making their chance of forming a government nigh on impossible

Published by Anonymous (not verified) on Fri, 26/02/2021 - 1:48am in


Economics, Labour

I noted that the Guardian has quoted Richard Burgon MP, the former shadow justice secretary, who is now secretary of the Socialist Campaign Group of MPs, as saying:

The question facing all politicians now is: who is going to pay for this crisis? And if we don’t have an answer for that, then we are in a position where Labour doesn’t have an answer to one of the biggest questions facing us.

No, Richard: it is not the biggest problem facing us. The biggest problem facing us is your incomprehension of the fact that this bill has been paid, in full, already. You are the constraint on Labour winning, in other words.

I have already tackled this once today in this video, and I will be doing so again tomorrow morning when I release the text of what I will be saying to Keele World Affairs tonight:

Labour needs to learn about The Joy of Tax

Published by Anonymous (not verified) on Thu, 25/02/2021 - 6:54pm in

I am not alone, I know, in despairing that Labour has apparently ruled out support for any tax increases this year when it would seem that it is very likely that the Chancellor is going to announce increases in corporation tax on business profits and capital gains tax on the sale of personal assets such as shares and property next week.

What is Labour doing? I wish I knew. Of course it is correct that no overall tax increases should be levied now one the economy, but as I expect to say as part of the talk I will be giving to Keele World Affairs tonight:

Whilst we do not, overall, need to raise tax we do most urgently need to address the inequality arising from Covid 19. Whilst some households are in dire stress as a result of Covid others are saving vast sums. The result is that inequality is growing rapidly. As a result, we should tax to reduce inequality at the top of the income and wealth orders in the UK.

This, I stress, is something we should do to tackle inequality though, and not because we need the money. That point is worth repeating: we do not need to feel grateful to the rich for the tax that they pay. We now know that taxes are just part of the government fiscal cycle. Instead, we need to tax the rich more because they are rich.

And before anyone says this is the politics of envy, it isn't. This is about pure, hard-nosed economics. Being rich is problematic because the rich earn money from being rich. And most of that money earned from being rich is paid by those who aren't well off. If you're in doubt as to the fact that the least well off subsidise the rich, just call the payments from those with the least to those who have the most interest charges and rent and you'll see exactly what I mean. The fact is that if the gap between rich and poor is too big we create an unequal society.

And that means that we also end up with a poorer society. That's because the rich will, in that case, control more and more of the income, as they do now. They, though, will save more and more of that income, and that's a real problem.

And the problem with too much saving is easily explained. It arises because the more that is saved in a society the less is spent on generating income. And as a result it ends up poorer as a consequence. Savings don't generate income. They may redistribute them, but they never create them. So, societies that have too big a wealth divide don't thrive.

So the simple fact is that tax has to correct for these trends, or failings, if we are to have a thriving, innovative, and wealthy society, which a country socially divided by inequality cannot deliver.

These are facts. Facts denied on the right-wing of politics, of course, but facts nonetheless. All I am describing is the lower marginal propensity to consume amongst those well off compared to those on lower incomes. That this is a fact is obvious: the wealthy must consume less as a proportion of income or they would not be wealthy. And we do need to address that inequality as a result.

Tax as an instrument of social policy can do that, This is what I described as The Joy of Tax in my book of that name.

It is time Labour learned what it is.

Keir Starmer is becoming a problem

Published by Anonymous (not verified) on Mon, 22/02/2021 - 5:42pm in

I had an article in the National newspaper in Scotland yesterday, published late yesterday. The opening in paragraphs said:

KEIR Starmer is beginning to worry me. Take his performance today. He has done two things, each of which is wrong in itself.

First, he has apparently told his MPs to not talk about Brexit. And then he refused to condemn Matt Hancock MP, the UK Health Secretary, for having been found to have broken the law last week when given the opportunity to do so by Sophy Ridge on Sky.

The rest is here. Since this was a paid article I cannot reproduce it in full.

Labour has to decide on Brexit – because half of England and Wales cannot go unrepresented forever

Published by Anonymous (not verified) on Sun, 21/02/2021 - 8:59pm in

The Guardian has reported that:

Labour MPs are being asked by the party’s high command not to focus on problems caused by Brexit when asking questions in parliament, dealing with the media, or posting on social media, according to sources in the parliamentary party.

After a week in which Labour leader Keir Starmer delivered a major speech on how the country should rebuild the economy and reduce inequality without once mentioning Brexit, relations with the EU or the severe problems that have confronted many UK exporters since 1 January, senior party figures reacted with astonishment.

I am not surprised that they were astonished. This data combines the results on 106 opinion polls on Brexit since 2017:

The reasonable conclusion from that data is that at least half the UK still has considerable doubt about the wisdom of leaving the EU. I am amongst their number.

And what Labour is doing, in a first past the post electoral system in which the government is determinedly pro-Brexit, is to refuse to represent those people. The result is that, with the best will in the world towards the smaller parties in England and Wales, there is no real prospect of political representation for around half the population in those countries at present.

In Scotland, of course, it is different. The reason why SNP support continues despite its in-fighting must in part be because there is fundamental alignment between that party and many in Scotland on the key issue of the day, to which alignment on Covid can be added.

In England and Wales there is no such alignment at all. Instead, we have the key opposition party deliberately turning its back on half the electorate in a deliberate move designed to ensure that they only compete on the government’s laid down terms, which guarantees that  they will lose. They can never out-Brexit the madness of the ERG on the right wing of the Conservative Party. This, then, is a policy with guaranteed failure built in, and yet Labour pursues it.

I would be annoyed enough if I was a Labour member. I am more annoyed because I am not. Not only is Labour refusing to represent half of England and Wales, and more than that in Scotland, but because of its intense tribalism that denies us any chance of political representation that might reflect our views in a proportional representation system it is also denying us the chance to be represented by parties that do reflect our views.

The result is obvious. It is that Labour guarantees perpetual Tory rule whilst undermining any chance of democracy in this country.

And please don’t say Corbyn would have been better on this. He clearly was not.

We are left in a desperate position where Labour joins with the Tories in destroying the proper functioning of democracy  in this country by simply  refusing people choice.

I loathe what the Tories are doing, but Labour has to be called out for facilitating it. And that’s both sad, and as annoying.

Labour’s Recovery Bonds are a work in progress, but they are also a decided step in the right direction

Published by Anonymous (not verified) on Fri, 19/02/2021 - 7:08pm in

Having been taken slightly by surprise to find that Labour appeared to be promoting an idea I have long been associated with, having first suggested something akin to it in 2003, in the form of its so-called Recovery Bonds, I have watched reaction with interest.

As far as I can see many on the right have simply decided to ignore this proposal. That is, I suspect, a policy based on the idea that denial of the publicity of oxygen to Starmer makes sense to them. It also suggests to me that this idea will be recycled as Tory strategy long before Starmer gets the chance to use it.

Reaction on the left has generally been hostile. Duncan Weldon said he could not see why the government wanted to borrow at more than prevailing gilt rates. That wholly misses the point. When existing subsidies to savers cost maybe £60bn a year, paying £1bn in additional interest charges is almost irrelevant if a social gain follows. Nonetheless, it seemed many echoed his view. Market fundamentalism runs riot on the left, or so it would appear.

Others suggested that NS&I should just increase its rates again, but that once again shows a lack of understanding as to what the proposal is about. The marketing of a bond (and I suggest they be hypothecated with greater granularity than it seems Labour might be proposing) is critical to its appeal. There is a deliberate social intention within the plan to link the saver with the project that the saving might deliver.

No one, it seems, got the inter-generational dimension to the idea: the proposal uses savings of the older generation actually to create assets and, most importantly, work for those who are younger.

I was asked by someone who knows MMT well who came up with this dumb idea, and I admitted I might be knew if its progenitors, and saw no conflict. I think that created a sense of horror. The MMT line is that the government does not need to borrow because it can always fund itself. But need and desirability are not the same. I have long argued pure MMT gets this wrong. The government may not need to borrow, but people need to deposit with it. That’s for security, or because they are overseas holders of sterling wanting a safe place to borrow funds, or because they are in finance and need the collateral value government bonds provide. The MMT argument about not needing to borrow has a singularity of perspective that does not help explain why bonds actually exist. I am quite willing to disagree with MMT when it gets things wrong.

And as far as I can see only Larry Elliott really got the purpose of the proposal, when saying in The Guardian:

The thinking behind them is that only a fraction of the excess savings built up during the pandemic will be spent so the rest could be doing something more useful than sitting in bank accounts.

In other words, he saw what the critics did not, which is the instability that substantial deficits create by pumping excess savings into the economy which QE denies a safe harbour to by restricting the supply of government bonds at a rate the smaller saver desires.

Aviva noted yesterday that there might be £1.6 trillion held in cash savings in the U.K. right now, with maybe £225bn of that earning no interest at all. People want security. This plan is intended to provide it whilst delivering social advantage.

The person who might gave got the idea best was James Meadway, who was once in John McDonnell’s team. He appreciated that this might provide the means to direct loan funds to local authorities at lower cost than they are charged at present with a new economic role being created for them as a result. This is exactly what Colin Hines and I were suggesting in 2003. The aim was always to empower local decision making and accountability.

The Recovery Bond is not a well formed idea from Labour as yet. The suggestion that it will pay market rates of interest is wrong: it needs to pay a premium. And it needs to be linked to ISAs, at least. It also needs more options. NHS bonds would work. So too would Welsh and Scottish bonds appeal, I am sure. But the proposal is much more significant than the critics have understood it to be.

It lets Labour answer the question ‘how will you pay for it?’ It now can say.

It lets Labour say it is tackling the risk of instability in the savings market, which I think is high.

And it really does provide a pool of capital. Of course MMT says that the government could also do this. And I agree, but that does not address the political difficulty of it doing so. And it does not address the difficulty of the savings glut that MMT could create, and which as far as I know is an issue it has not addressed, but where the market has no solution and so one is required. This plan recognises those realities and deficiencies and addresses them.

Let me be clear that I see this as a work in progress. But it is also a decided step in the right direction.

Labour’s Recovery Bond – and why it makes sense now

Published by Anonymous (not verified) on Fri, 19/02/2021 - 1:50am in

I posted this thread on Twitter not long ago:

Labour has announced that it would promote a Recovery Bond right now if it was in office. It’s a policy I wholeheartedly support. In this thread I explain why it’s a good policy for the UK right now.

After ten years of Tory government the UK’s in a poor economic place. Ignore Brexit and it’s still underinvested, its infrastructure is poor, its social housing stock too limited. Its banks are dependent on quantitative easing for their survival, and almost failed in 2008 and 2020

On top of that QE has, whilst successfully funding government and keeping inflation low, forced savings into speculative activity like the stock exchange, which keeps the City happy but very rarely ever funds a new job. The result is an over valued market that could topple.

There’s another dangerous aspect to that savings bubble. It represents the growth of ever greater inequality in the UK that is going to be crushing for generations to come.

What is needed are four things. First is new capital for investment. Second is a Green New Deal. Third is safe savings. Fourth is better use for government subsidies to savers of about £60bn a year now. The Recovery Bond could address all these.

ISAs collect more than £70bn in savings a year. Pensions do more than £100bn. The total tax subsidy may be £60bn a year. Now offer a Recovery Bond, guaranteed by the government. Make them the only thing available in ISAs. Offer them in pensions. Up to £100bn could be raised a year.

Offer 1% and that will happen. And to all those yelling ‘that will cost £1bn extra year’ I don’t hear complaints about the current £60bn subsidy to free market savings now, so I don’t get the issue.

What I do know is that this money could get directed to new housing, green infrastructure, new transport systems and better local power generation. Literally, Jobs in Every Constituency of the UK. Nothing else can do that.

And although government could fund this, it won’t because its worried about inflation from borrowing, rightly or wrongly.

The Recovery Bond does something unknown in the UK for decades. It will link savings directly to investment. And savers will need to be told what they’re funding. There’s a massive social gain from this.

There is another win. That is to inter-generational solidarity. Savers are usually older. New jobs are usually required by the young. This plan would link the two with a single aim.

And there is another win too. Drawing money out of an over-heated stock market will stabilise it and reduce the risk of a crash.

But let’s not forget the environmental gain too: we need the money to deliver a Green New Deal. This type of hypothecated bond could do that.

Of course it will pay interest rates over the odds. So the amount anyone can save may need to be restricted. And we may want to limit the bond to people living in the UK, but ISAs do that already anyway.

But the point is the Recovery Bond does at a moderate interest cost put tax subsidies to social use, provide a safe place for savers, pay an attractive interest rate, create jobs, and build a Green New Deal.

What baffles me is why the Left are objecting because they think it might increase interest costs a little. That’s price well worth paying for the social, capital this bond will create, plus all the other gains.

I welcome this proposal. It is Labour delivering joined-up thinking at very low cost that can transform millions of lives. That’s got to be good news.

Labour goes for bonds – which are the right solution for savings and investment for this moment

Published by Anonymous (not verified) on Thu, 18/02/2021 - 11:10pm in


Economics, Labour

As The Independent has reported:

Labour leader Keir Starmer has announced plans for a new British Recovery Bond to allow people to invest billions of pounds savings built up during the pandemic in local communities, jobs and businesses.

Sir Keir said the Bond would provide financial security for millions of people as well as raising funds for investment in the science, skills, technology and manufacturing of the future.

Alongside a call for start-up loans for 100,000 new businesses across every region of the UK, it was the most eye-catching new policy in a speech setting out how Labour would approach the 3 March Budget.

Where did the idea come from? Try this, published on this blog in December 2019 and shared with Labour a number of times since then:

Funding the Green New Deal

How we could Save for the Planet


Funding the £100 billion a year needed for the Green New Deal from UK ISA and pension savers


Almost everyone now realises that we need a Green New Deal if we are to tackle the climate crisis. And almost without exception politicians now realise that this will require that we borrow to fund the investment in the future of our society that the Green New Deal represents. But there has, to date, been a big unanswered question about this borrowing. No one has actually said who it is that will buy the bonds that will have to be sold to fund the Green New Deal.

In a new report entitled 'Funding the Green New Deal: How we could Save for the Planet', Richard Murphy and Colin Hines, who are both members of the Group that wrote the first Green New Deal report in 2008, seek to answer that question. As they show, over 80% of UK financial wealth is held in tax incentivised accounts, whether they be pensions or ISAs. As a result it is to these sources that they look for the funding. What they suggest is that by simple changes to the tax reliefs applicable on both types of account up to £100 billion of funds can be directed towards the Green New Deal each year. This is as much funding as anyone suggests might be needed at present.

The changes are simple. With regard to ISAs it is suggested that the government should back the issue of Green New Deal bonds paying interest at an average rate of 1.85%, which is the average UK government cost of borrowing at present, and it is only these that should be available to ISA savers in the future. This could raise up to £70 billion a year in funds.

With regard to pensions, in exchange for the tax relief given on pension contributions, which currently cost £54 billion a year, the requirement would be that 25% of all new pension contributions would be invested in Green New Deal related activity.

Taken together the measures would ensure that tax reliefs are aligned to society's need for a Green New Deal.

Caroline Lucas, who has been the Green Party MP for Brighton Pavilion since 2010 and who is standing again in the current election, has written a foreword to the report. In it she says:

"As Murphy and Hines remind us, people investing in pensions and savings will largely be from older generations who can thus play a vital part in the Green New Deal. They can save for their own benefit and at the same time benefit all of us, and in particular, younger generations. This inter-generational rebalancing could be another key element of the Green New Deal, and merits further investigation. Working together, we can create a better future. For all of us, and for the planet we share."

The report is available here.

The latest version was published here, in January, where the economic justification for this was provided.

And for those familiar with MMT, this is not of course what a pure MMT approach would suggest. It would say that there could be funding without bonds, and I agree. But, there is good reason for this alternative now.

The first such reason is that QE has created the savings pool I referred to recently, which is deeply destabilising to the economy and MMT has no answer to that.  Second, that money has to be withdrawn from the economy without tax right now, and savings can do that. Third, the savings need to be non-speculative and locked down. The bond idea achieves that. These bonds address an issue we have. And that is justification enough for me.

Now Labour has to flesh out how they would work. I believe that some work is being done on that and so I hope there is delivery, soon.

Has Labour got a vision?

Published by Anonymous (not verified) on Thu, 18/02/2021 - 6:55pm in

If the hype is to be believed we are are at tipping point.

There is no doubt that Covid cases are coming down, even if the evidence that this is the result of the UK vaccine programme remains in doubt, based on evidence given to the House of Commons yesterday.

There is, however, and despite the massive uncertainties and risks, an emerging plan to reopen the country, even if many well qualified commentators doubt the wisdom of doing so at the pace suggested.

And today there is a leak suggesting that Sunak has realised that the March budget will be a time for more economic support, and not to begin a programme of tax rises and austerity.

In the midst of this Labour has sensed the mood for change with Starmer making a speech today on a new economic vision. Let’s see.

I say that for a reason. So far everything to do with the government’s planning, at least, is intensely reactive. Some of that is appropriate, of course. I am the first to say that there is genuine uncertainty on what is really happening with Covid 19. I accept the constraint.

And at the same time I do not. Surely there has to be a vision after what has happened for what recovery might look like? It cannot be cronyism, can it? The stench of that arising from Westminster is what has defined this government to date. Beyond the desire to profit friends and to make expedient rather than appropriate decisions little has happened to suggest that this government has got much right as yet. And nothing, barring the smallest of token gestures, and failed schemes such as that on greening housing, provide any real indication of a plan as yet.

In this crisis, where the promise of seeing friends fells like liberation, that may be enough to secure short term support, but there ate still nearly four years to go before another election is called. Presuming that Covid does not dominate this entire period (and it might) what then?

Labour needs to take risks today to differentiate itself from the government. There is every reason to do so. If we are really at a turning point (and if it is not now, it will come) then horizons will lift. At present the government seems without any sort of vision. Having ‘done’ Brexit it seems devoid of purpose and disinclined to deal with the mess that it has created.

I have no expectation that anything Labour says will have any impact on its fortunes in Scotland. Elsewhere an idea as to why Labour is now worth considering as an alternative on any basis other than ‘not the Tories’ is overdue and so would be welcome.

But will Starmer deliver? The signs to date have not been good. It will be worth reviewing, although given my schedule today that might not happen until tomorrow, to give fair warning.

Are we all to succumb to the outright nastiness of the small-minded nationalist outlook now?

Published by Anonymous (not verified) on Wed, 03/02/2021 - 7:30pm in

According to the Guardian:

Labour must make “use of the [union] flag, veterans [and] dressing smartly” as part of a radical rebranding to help it win back the trust of disillusioned voters, according to a leaked internal strategy presentation.

The presentation, which has been seen and heard by the Guardian, is aimed at what the party calls “foundation seats”, a new term for the “red wall” constituencies that handed Boris Johnson a landslide in 2019, and other seats it fears could also turn blue. It will be seen as a marker of how concerned Labour is about its electoral position.

I think many might have uttered an odd expletive, or three, on reading that.

It is indisputable  that Labour has an image problem right now. It is now apparent that Keir Starmer’s greatest abilities are to be found in fence sitting whilst supporting government policy. And it is clear that as a consequence Labour is struggling for a poll lead when it should be miles ahead of a government whose policy failings  have, without doubt, contributed to the early deaths of tens of thousands of people. So, I suppose we should be grateful that Labour has noticed.

But flag waving, for heaven’s sake?

Let me state this as clearly as I can.  Labour cannot win by out new-fascisting the neo-fascists in the Tories, who adopted this from UKIP.

Then let me state the obvious reasons for that, by referencing the Union flag it wishes to flaunt.

First, Labour is not in Northern Ireland.

And for all practical purposes Labour is dead and never to be revived in Scotland. Fifty years of its neglect has ensured that.

Whilst one third of Wales now wants an independence referendum.

Which means that in that case Labour is flying a Union flag in the cause of English nationalism.

And that won’t just alienate Scotland and Wales even more; it is also true that  nothing is more certain to alienate many in England. We do not still wish to be seen as a colonial power, which is exactly what Labour by doing this is answering that England still is.

And those it will alienate are on the left, not the right. And they might vote for others, just as those who once voted for Labour in Scotland now do.

And why might they do that? Because they really do not like this appeasement by the party of new-fascism.

If Labour wants a policy talk jobs, the NHS, housing and the Green New Deal.

Promise decent benefits.

Justify what it is going to do.

Explain how to pay for it, as I can do.

And then talk delivery, endlessly.

Hammer home that the NHS was not ready for the current crisis because of a failure of government preparedness that the Tories can never supply , but which is what Labour would  be about.

But the Union Jack? Are we really all to succumb to the outright nastiness of the small-minded nationalist outlook now? Really?

I despair.

UK Labour Party’s Hiring of Former Israeli Spy Completes the Post-Corbyn Transformation 

Published by Anonymous (not verified) on Tue, 02/02/2021 - 8:37am in

Jeremy Corbyn’s successor as the UK’s opposition party leader (LOTO), Keir Starmer, has stated unequivocally that the embattled former head of the opposition will not return as a Labour MP, despite being reinstated as a member of the Party following his controversial ouster, which was driven by what many have called a concerted smear campaign branding him an anti-Semite and thwarting his bid to become Prime Minister.

After winning 52% of the vote, Starmer is now poised to jettison any perceptions of an anti-Jewish Labour Party and restore “trust” with the UK’s Jewish community, which exited the Party en masse during Corbyn’s tenure. A self-declared Zionist, the new LOTO is already facing criticism for quickly abandoning one of the central tenets of his campaign, but is standing firm on the matter of committing the Party to Israel.

Starmer’s links to the apartheid state are well-known and his successful run was bankrolled by prominent Israeli lobbyist Trevor Chinn, who also funded three other Labour MPs that played a key role in the promotion of the campaign against Corbyn and paved the way for Starmer’s rise to the Party leadership. Described as a man who “ascended to the front bench almost as soon as he entered parliament,” Starmer’s relative obscurity seems at odds with the historic moment this Labour party seems to be entering as calls for radical reform to the UK’s constitution are becoming louder in the wake of the recently unveiled Brexit deal.

Given Starmer’s “laser focus” on securing 10 Downing Street for Labour in 2024 and the critical messaging such a goal will require as Britain moves out of the EU, it is also noteworthy that Starmer’s office has hired a ‘former’ Israeli spy and Unit 8200 alumnus, Assaf Kaplan to oversee the Party’s social media operation. As reported by Asa Winstanley for The Electronic Intifada, Kaplan joined the UK’s opposition’s head office soon after Starmer’s election in December 2020.


The mercenary

Kaplan’s official title is Social Listening and Organizing Manager and, as such, is tasked with profiling target audiences. In this capacity, he will be honing in on who the opposition party’s audience is, how they feel about the party and what they want. While social listening, itself, is a new trend in brand marketing, its principles have deep roots in the Israeli military’s Unit 8200, where Kaplan served from 2009 to 2015.

Known as an incubator for numerous Israeli cybersecurity and digital surveillance startups that go on to join the private sector to provide related services to target dissidents around the world, like the infamous NSO Group and Black Cube, Unit 8200’s reputation for using state-of-the-art spying technology to repress, surveil and assassinate Palestinians follows anyone associated with the shadowy IDF spinoff factory.

The Unit’s murderous practices against the Palestinian people was exposed by a former member in 2014, who described the horrific lengths to which the Israeli state goes to make life a living hell for Palestinians through covert information gathering used to murder women and children in Gaza under the guise of fighting terrorism. “A significant part of our objectives are innocent people, not at all connected to any military activity,” writes the IDF whistleblower, revealing that he would often seek information about targets’ “difficult financial situation, sexual preferences, a person’s chronic illness or that of a relative, and necessary medical treatment”, which would be used to serve the “agendas of certain politicians.”

This kind of experience is sure to come in handy for Kaplan in his post at Labour Party headquarters, whose background includes knowledge of “digital monitoring platforms” and “human analysis” relating to Israeli elections. Together with his new boss’s recent history of using social media to execute a purge of purported “anti-Semitic” elements within the party, Kaplan should fit right in.


Starmer’s Purge

Beginning with Jeremy Corbyn, a life-long advocate for Palestinian rights who was banished from the center-left party for vacillating on the adoption of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of anti-Semitism in Labour’s code of conduct, the campaign to root out pro-Palestinian voices within the party counted with the active participation of Keir Starmer.

Together with other party officials, Starmer played a leading role in the purging of eleven Labour party members, who had been tagged as anti-Semitic by an influential Jewish organization called Board of Deputies of British Jews or BoD, whose one-time president – Lord Rothschild – had a certain letter addressed to him from the King of England, which came to be known as the Balfour Declaration and led directly to the creation of Israel.

Starmer and company used the tweets of Rebecca Massey, a leading pro-Corbyn activist, to expel her from the party. The BoD had called attention to her social media posts and relayed their concerns that these “demonized Israel” and bordered on anti-Semitism. Denials by Starmer that he played any role in her expulsion and that of ten others at the behest of the BoD, were nonetheless disproved by confidential documents released in May 2020, that showed Starmer had met with the Jewish Labour Movement – a BoD affiliate – the day of Massey’s expulsion pursuant to a recommendation to expel her and ten others, which did occur later that evening.


Sacrificial Lamb

The UK is entering a pivotal time in its history as the pandemic crisis meets head on with the implementation of a Brexit deal, that is still opposed by a large segment of the population. Add to this the prospect of 3 million immigrants from Hong Kong rushing to take advantage of Boris Johnson’s British National Overseas (BNO) visa program as China declares it will not recognize the special passports, and you have a recipe for high drama in the coming months and years for the UK.

Perhaps an ideal scenario for those intent on remaking the British constitution, which is mostly coming from the centrists within the party and all those who would like to see all “the good stuff from the discredited EU and its institutions”, while leaving behind all “the rubbish.” What exactly the ‘good stuff’ is and what it is not, remains to be decided

What is clear is that the UK Labour Party has no intention of letting this ‘crisis go to waste’ and by bringing in an Israeli mercenary spy to take control of the all-important dimension of social media, which played a significant role in Brexit’s victory, Starmer is signaling Labour’s commitment to sacrifice human rights in Palestine for a shot at 2024.

Feature photo | Britain’s Labour party leader Keir Starmer speaks during Prime Minister’s Questions in the House of Commons in London, Wednesday, Sept. 23, 2020.

Raul Diego is a MintPress News Staff Writer, independent photojournalist, researcher, writer and documentary filmmaker.

The post UK Labour Party’s Hiring of Former Israeli Spy Completes the Post-Corbyn Transformation  appeared first on MintPress News.