Alex Nunns Profile picture
Sep 13, 2021 17 tweets 5 min read Read on X
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.
theguardian.com/politics/2021/…
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.
Again, direct quotes from Starmer's chief of staff; an agreement, a deal. No denial it was said.
They daren't deny these things were said, so instead they claim they've been misinterpreted. We're meant to believe they were all just having a chat about what they expected to happen. It was just a coincidence that they were agreeing the text of a statement at the same time.
But this excuse is actually very revealing because if it was Starmer's expectation "based on precedent" that Jeremy's suspension would be lifted, then he knew immediately that Jeremy hadn't done anything to warrant it. So why the hell was he suspended?
And if Starmer expected from the very beginning that Corbyn would be cleared—which is what *he* is now insisting—then how come he withdraw the whip when Corbyn _was_ cleared?

He's got himself tied up in knots. Faced with quotes he can't deny, he has to twist his story to fit.
Unwilling to refute quotes and facts, Starmer's office explains the "disparity" between the stories with a complete red herring: that Corbyn refused to delete his original Facebook statement. But that's got nothing to do with the deal that Len reveals.
The issue of deleting the Facebook post came later, after Corbyn was readmitted by the NEC. Len is describing what happened earlier, in negotiations over the deal. Whether a Facebook post was deleted later isn't relevant to the earlier negotiations. They're shifting the grounds.
But if, on the other hand, Starmer's office is claiming that deleting the statement was part of the deal, then they're admitting there was a deal, despite denying there was a deal in the previous paragraph.

Either way, they haven't got their story straight.
Starmer's team's big retort is: "Len cannot acknowledge that even he could not get Jeremy to apologise or retract his original statement."

The thing is, Len never asked Jeremy to. That wasn't part of the deal. Starmer only demanded an apology *after* the whip was withdrawn.
It's interesting that the demand from Starmer now appears to be that Jeremy must delete his Facebook statement. Previously it was that he must apologise. If the terms keep changing, how can Jeremy ever trust the other side?
Finally, the weirdest claim in Starmer's team's response is that Corbyn was suspended because of the conclusions of the EHRC report.

This is completely new. They've always said he was suspended for his statement in response to the report, not for the content of the report itself
Have they just got mixed up, or did they actually suspend Jeremy for one thing but tell him, and the NEC, it was for another thing?

Why is their line always changing?

It seems they're in a constant state of confusion about what they did and why.

Or they're making it up.
If what they're saying is true (it isn't) and the head of legal and the general secretary decided to suspend Corbyn, why did they bypass the Governance and Legal Unit? If the head of legal knew the EHRC's conclusions, he must have known the report said GLU had to handle it.
The idea "Starmer was in the room at the time" it was decided to suspend a former Labour Leader, but didn't have any involvement, stretches credulity even without knowing he told Len he did it & boasted about it on the radio. What is it they say, "present but not involved"?
So in the blue corner, Starmer's team deny a deal, but their arguments are inconsistent, illogical & anonymous.

In the red corner, Len is on the record saying there was a deal, providing uncontested verbatim quotes & showing Starmer to be dishonest.

Who would you believe?

• • •

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!

PDF

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

Sep 21, 2023
Labour says it's just ensuring the “highest standards of behaviour" from MPs in its treatment of Diane Abbott and others, not purging the left.

But if it's about standards, how come the following non-left MPs who have been accused of racism do meet the party's "high standards"?>
Steve Reed sits in Keir Starmer’s shadow cabinet despite having had to apologise for calling a Jewish businessman a “puppet master” in 2020.

Despite Starmer’s purported “zero tolerance” of antisemitism, Reed faced no sanction and remained in Keir’s team.
thejc.com/news/uk/labour…
Mike Amesbury was recently promoted to the shadow frontbench by Starmer. He previously shared what was described as an “antisemitic caricature” on social media, for which he apologised in 2019.
thejc.com/news/uk-news/l…
Read 12 tweets
May 28, 2023
It's become a fact that Roger Waters had a pig emblazoned with the Star of David at his gig in Berlin.

It has been used by MPs to call for his shows to be pulled, featured in headlines in the Daily Mail, repeated by the BBC etc.

Except, he didn't. Here is the pig in Berlin: ImageImage
The inflatable pig is a reference to the album cover of Pink Floyd's Animals, which showed a pig flying above Battersea Power Station. That, in turn, was a reference to George Orwell's Animal Farm, which depicted pigs as tyrannical rulers. Image
The inflatable pig has been a feature of Roger Waters' shows for years. Each iteration has different symbols on it. In 2013, the pig featured the Jewish Star of David, the Muslim crescent and star, and the Christian crucifix, presumably in a statement against organised religion.
Read 9 tweets
Apr 14, 2023
"This is Keir Starmer you’re talking here" someone replied to me incredulously after I said he lived it up on expenses as DPP.

So let's look instead at the hospitality he's been enjoying lately: more than £22,000 worth in the last year alone—averaging £1,800 a month in freebies.
Starmer was gifted £1,600 of tickets and hospitality for Spurs vs Arsenal in January by Getir, the rapid delivery company that has just got rid of around 300 UK workers with no notice, leaving the laid off employees "crying and angry." chargedretail.co.uk/2023/03/23/get…
He got Google to buy him dinner—at £190 a head—when he felt peckish while cavorting with the elite in Davos (a place he prefers to Westminster because its full of people he "can see working with in future"). Google, of course, a company with no agenda.
Read 7 tweets
Mar 16, 2023
NEW: Martin Forde, the KC asked by Keir Starmer to write a report on Labour's culture (that Keir ignored), breaks his silence, saying there's a hierarchy of racism under Starmer:

"Anti-black racism, Islamophobia, isn’t taken as seriously as antisemitism."
Forde: “Quite a high proportion of Black and Asian councillors or prospective MPs felt they'd been subjected to disciplinary action which had been deliberately timed to exclude them from qualifying processes or selection.”
The programme says: "In his report published in July 2022, Forde made 165 recommendations. He was surprised to have heard almost nothing from the party since."

Forde: "I had very limited communication."
Read 7 tweets
Oct 9, 2022
At last some coverage in a mainstream publication of the damning Al Jazeera documentary The Labour Files.

The rest continue to ignore it.

"Members deserve answers about the revelations in Al Jazeera’s documentary—Labour has so far given none"
@MSuhail0
independent.co.uk/voices/labour-…
The piece summarises some of the film's findings, especially on the "current of anti-Black racism and Islamophobia in the party under Starmer," and demands:
"Those responsible for wrongdoing must be held to account, and anyone who participated in racist WhatsApp chats must face consequences. Next, the Forde Report’s recommendations must be implemented in full..."
Read 6 tweets
Aug 17, 2022
Saw Keir's "commitment" clip so checked the full thing. Ouch.

@afneil: A pledge is your word...So is it a pledge that these industries will be in your manifesto for nationalisation?

KS: Yes

And tuition fees?

"They're all pledges so the answer is yes..That's why it's a pledge"
Watch to the end for a funny bit.
Those commitments in full:

AN Can you guarantee the 2019 commitment to nationalise water, energy, rail, mail will be in the next Labour manifesto?

KS I've made that commitment.

AN Those 4 industries will be in the Labour manifesto for nationalisation come 2024?

KS They will.
Read 5 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

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

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

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(