They decided that whether that staffer was or wasn't put there by the leadership for political reasons, "some people" perceived him to have been, and that undermined confidence in the independence of the complaints process. Image
That's very interesting because in June, when a new Executive Director of Legal Affairs was hired to oversee GLU, the press was told he was Starmer's "trusted ally," his "enforcer," and GLU staff should fear for their jobs.

Didn't that undermine the independence of GLU? Image
Bringing this back to Corbyn, on an all-staff call on Friday—perhaps stung by NEC members having disputed that the General Secretary even has the power to suspend—staff were told he'd consulted Starmer's reported "enforcer." Just can't escape the charge of political interference.
Meantime, Friday morning, Starmer made a further breach. Instead of not commenting on Jeremy's specific case, he mischaracterised what Jeremy said and branded it "denial." That could itself constitute political interference. It could prejudice an investigation.
Jeremy Corbyn didn't deny there's a problem with antisemitism in the Labour Party, didn't say it was "just" exaggerated, and didn't say it was "just" factional. He said "Anyone claiming there is no antisemitism in the Labour Party is wrong." Starmer knows that, of course.
All this leads to two conclusions:

1) Labour flouted the EHRC report on the day it was published. There was political interference. That appears to be unlawful indirect discrimination.

2) If I was in charge of Labour, I really wouldn't want to have to defend all this in court.
Annoyingly, two tweets in the above thread are showning as unavailable to most people (although I can see them - weird). Here's what they said. ImageImage

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

Keep Current with Alex Nunns

Alex Nunns Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!


Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @alexnunns

13 Nov
As I was saying...

Corbyn: "Nobody who was in a front bench position...would be allowed to take a second job...I made that very clear to everybody including him [Starmer]."

“He’s saying there was no such request made.”

“There was an absolutely clear request and decision made.”
To recap, Starmer's assertions about this second job business have now been flatly contradicted by Jeremy Corbyn on the record, by three then-members of the shadow cabinet, and by email and text evidence from the time.

Why he chose to dig this hole I do not know.
People have responded who cares? He didn't take the job (thanks to JC) & Tory corruption is on a different scale. Of course it is—so why not tell the truth? Presumably it's because the fact he wanted to take the job does undermine his position now.
Read 5 tweets
12 Nov
Contrary to claims by Starmer’s spokesperson yesterday, Starmer did turn down a lucrative second job in 2017 AFTER an intervention from Corbyn and his office. Since I reported that on Weds, Starmer has claimed it is "completely untrue." But emails and texts show that to be false.
Starmer decided to turn down the job down on Tuesday 25 July 2017, saying "I have decided not to further the discussions." He now claims this was before Corbyn's staff "were even aware of it."

But this was more than 24 hours after Corbyn's staff had intervened.
Here are the receipts.

At 8am 24 July, Starmer's office wanted to ride the controversy out, asking Corbyn's team to say the job was a "limited role" & discussions were ongoing. "Keir doesn't want to say anything new" they said.

Corbyn's office replied that wasn't acceptable.
Read 6 tweets
10 Nov
Corbyn stopped Starmer taking a second job doing high-paid consultancy work for law firm Mishcon de Reya in 2017, several key figures from the Corbyn leadership have confirmed to me.

Starmer argued he should be free to take up the role, but Corbyn decided "absolutely no." >>>
Starmer has tried to capitalise on Tory sleaze despite ditching Labour's 2019 pledge to ban MPs' second jobs.

Yet sources say Starmer wanted to take a lucrative second job while in the shadow cabinet, was blocked by Corbyn, and then pretended otherwise.
The matter was raised at a meeting of the shadow cabinet, where "Jeremy very politely reminded Keir what Labour Party policy was," according to a senior member of Corbyn's shadow ministerial team.
Read 11 tweets
8 Nov
"You were in talks to take a job yourself."

"No I wasn't. I was in discussion."
Credit to @SamCoatesSky for asking the question.
The next question should have been "So were you in discussion about taking a job?" just to see if he replied "No I wasn't. I was in talks."
Read 4 tweets
22 Sep
There's a lot of nonsense being spoken by the Labour leadership & its friendly media about how Keir fixing the leadership election rules for his faction is intended to empower trade unions. It isn't, and it won't. It's just a factional power grab. Here's why. >
Even under the electoral college, trade union members have one member one vote in their section. They have minds of their own. Often, they don't vote for the candidate their union recommends (e.g. they voted for Blair). This change won't give union leaderships any more leverage.
It will, though, give Labour MPs massive power to veto candidates they don't like. In the past, they vetoed candidates who were supporters of trade unions in favour of candidates who regarded trade unions as a kind of embarrassing uncle they had to see at Christmas time.
Read 17 tweets
13 Sep
Len McCluskey's revelation about the deal with Starmer to lift Corbyn's suspension has forced a response from Starmer's office. It's contradictory, weird & accidentally damning.

Most important: they don't contest any of the direct quotes Len provides.…
For example look at this: direct quotes from Starmer, including the admission "He put me in an impossible position and I had no choice."

They don't deny he said it, they just say it doesn't mean what it means. "Labour sources denied those words were tantamount to an admission."
Similarly, Len asked Starmer "if we could reach an agreed form of words that both Jeremy and you, Keir, are happy with, then the suspension could be lifted?" Starmer said "Yes." That's unambiguous. It's an agreement. No denial it was said.
Read 17 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!