Home Blog Page 167

Italian Dockers refuse to load weapons for Israel

After discovering that a shipment of arms destined for Israel was arriving in Italy’s ports, workers from the USB (Unione Sindacale di Base) refused to load the ship in support of the Palestinians fighting for their lives against Israeli occupation.

Autonomous Collective of Port Workers of Genoa and the WeaponWatch association, organised in L’Unione Sindacale di Base, learning that the ship was filled with weapons and explosives bound for the Israeli dock of Ashdod.

They stated these weapons and explosives would be used to kill Palestinians, who have already been hit by a brutal Israeli military offensive that has murdered hundreds of victims, including many children. The union announced shortly after that it would not allow this or any other maritime shipments of armaments to set sail for Israel. 

Unione Sindacale di Base

The statement from the USB read:

The Port of Livorno is not complicit in the massacre against the Palestinian population: no to the transit of the weapons ship in our port

This afternoon the Asiatic Island ship will arrive in the port of Livorno. Thanks to the report of the Autonomous Port Workers Collective of Genoa and the WeaponWhath association, we know that inside there are containers loaded with weapons and explosives headed for the Israeli port of Ashdod. Weapons and explosives that will be used to kill the Palestinian population already hit by a severe attack this very night which caused hundreds of victims among the civilian population, including many children.

We do not yet know if containers of weapons and explosives will also be loaded in our port but it certainly would not be the first time this happens. Through unionized dock workers we are trying to gather information to that effect. Just yesterday we received a report about the presence, at the Molo Italia, of dozens of armored military vehicles ready to be boarded.

In addition to the issue of war, there is also an objective security problem for the workers and the population. In this sense, we have sent urgent reports to the Port Authority, the Harbor Master’s Office and the Occupational Medicine ASL so that they can immediately carry out the appropriate checks.

The Basic Union Union will also be in the streets tomorrow in Livorno in solidarity with the Palestinian population and to demand an immediate stop to the bombing of Gaza and a stop to the “expropriation” of Palestinian homes that have been living under military occupation for years.

At the same time, we launched an awareness campaign with Livorno port workers so that the courageous example that comes from the Port of Genoa can also be re-proposed on our territory. Work is important, especially in these times, but this cannot make us close our eyes, or worse still, make us complicit in the continuing massacres of the civilian population.

Basic Union of Trade Union Sec. Port

Livorno May 14, 2021

“No to the arms ship in our port”

The USB

Who are the USB

The USB (Unione Sindacale di Base) is a union born in 2010 from a merger between a number of different base unions, some from the CUB. The USB also has a regular national structure with some full-time staff and around 250,000 members.

It’s especially active in the public sector and in some particular important struggles, such as the struggle for the right to housing (through the tenants’ union ASIA USB) and for migrants’ rights.

It also gives great importance to the provision of services such as legal advice and migrant support drop-ins. LINK

Tony Benn: Protest is vital to a thriving democracy

0

The British people are many things and have many layers but within our complexity, there is one thing that binds us all, our willingness to fight for our freedoms, none were given, they were all won.

Throughout history, the common folk have stood united in hard-fought battles from the Magna Carta Libertatum, Chartism and Suffrage through to the Human Rights Act 1998. Never mind the countless other battles we have fought in this never-ending tug of war over our liberties. Including the poll tax riots, the miner’s strike or even the Stop the War protest in 2003, the largest demonstration in the history of Britain, a million marching against Blair’s illegal wars on Iraq, along with all the other protests that have made up our collective voices against the injustices placed on the working class, we have all stood united at one time or another.

The willingness to stand up and protest for our rights is a fundamental freedom and however inconvenient that may be to the establishment who would be more than happy for us to pack away our placards and sit silent allowing them to continue without our interference, it just won’t happen.

Freedom of speech and the right to protest peacefully is protected by law both common and Statutory law with the Human Rights Act of 1998.

Article 11 of the Human rights act protects our right to protest by holding meetings and demonstrations with other people

We also have the right to form and be part of a trade union, a political party or any another association or voluntary group. 

Article 11: Freedom of assembly and association

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and to freedom of association with others, including the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.

2. No restrictions shall be placed on the exercise of these rights other than such as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. This article shall not prevent the imposition of lawful restrictions on the exercise of these rights by members of the armed forces, of the police or of the administration of the state. 

Common law

Common law stipulates our rights: personal security, personal liberty and private property, and auxiliary rights necessary to secure them, such as access to justice. Rights to a fair trial, the right to open justice and to freedom of speech are recognised both within common law and in the Convention of Human rights.

Nobody explains better why protesting is so important and vital to a thriving democracy than the late great Tony Benn.

In January 2011, Tony Benn wrote an article about protesting that is every bit as relevant today as it was then…

Tony Benn January 22/2011

The recent UK demonstrations by students against the huge increase in university fees has provided the latest example of media coverage of such events: they are often presented as being motivated by violence which endangers the fabric of our society.

The police’s stance is very simple – they claim that they are there to protect demonstrations, but that inevitably violence occurs. But my own experience suggests that this is a gross oversimplification.

Two or three years ago, there was a meeting in Parliament Square organised by those who opposed the Iraq war, at which a Member of Parliament spoke, together with two very senior UN officials who were involved in Iraq. The event was attended by hundreds of peace campaigners, many of them elderly, and all of them committed to peace.

The demonstration had been organised in connection with a plan to deliver a letter to the Prime Minister in Downing Street, and after the speeches were over the crowd began to move towards Whitehall.

But that same day, President Bush was visiting 10 Downing Street and the police were ordered to close Whitehall, preventing the letter from being delivered. As the crowd moved to enter Whitehall, they came up against a body of police. The pressure from the back pushed people forward and the police began using their batons on the crowd at the front.

As I was at the head of the protest myself, I saw what was happening – the violence of the police against the demonstrators was clearly visible and was very frightening.

It is in these circumstances that occasionally someone may pick up a brick and throw it – not that I saw it happen that day. But such an action would be taken as proof of violence against the police.

Similarly, the process of “kettling”, in which police surround a crowd and prevent anyone from leaving, has caused trouble, since kettling is a form of imprisonment of demonstrators without any court justification.

There is no doubt that you will find a few angry people in any crowd, and kettling may bring this aggression out further. But then the media uses the inevitable clash as evidence that the demonstration is violent, which is not actually the case.

No government likes to find itself faced with demonstrations against its policies and as these recent pictures show, there are plenty of disillusioned citizens across Europe right now. Over Britain’s long history, many significant gains have been brought about by such demonstrations – as with the recognition of trade unions, the campaign for the vote by the Chartists, and for votes for women by the Suffragettes.

Each of these campaigns was denounced at the time as violent. But it’s interesting to see exactly how they unfolded. To begin with, the demonstrations are ignored; if they continue, they’re described as absurd, and then if they persist, they are described as violent and the people responsible may be imprisoned.

Then comes a pause as public opinion realigns itself to support the changes being demanded. Once the government has finally got the message, you can’t find anyone who doesn’t claim to have supported the demands in the first place.

It’s not possible to find anyone now who was opposed to the recognition of trade unions or to the principle of one woman, one vote. Yet it was only a committed group of campaigners who actually brought these changes about. There’s no justification for violence – if protesters resort to it, it can turn public opinion against the cause.

Remember the way that public opinion shifted in support of men such as Gandhi and Nelson Mandela. Both are now regarded as heroes for the sacrifices they made to defend human rights. There is hardly any support now for the Vietnam war and public opinion is strongly opposed to the Afghan war.

This all goes to prove the importance of demonstrations and popular campaigns for peace, human rights and democracy.

We must expect far more demonstrations in the future and they must be seen as an integral part of political action in a democratic society. Without them, injustices would continue unchallenged and people would lose confidence in the democratic process by which such injustices are changed.

#KillTheBill #RightToProtest #PolicingBill

Labour MP Wes Streeting uses Twitter to announce he is to undergo treatment for kidney cancer

Where it may seem a little unusual to most people to announce such a personal statement to the world on Twitter. In 2016 Wes Streeting was revealed as Twitter’s most addicted MP – by posting every 36 minutes for 7 years. Twitter’s most addicted MP had written half a million words, more than War and Peace.

The MP for Ilford North, 38, says news came as ‘enormous shock’ but that he should make full recovery

Streeting, is to step back from frontline politics for a period to have treatment for kidney cancer, he has announced.

Streeting, 38, was moved into the shadow cabinet role days ago as part of the party’s frontbench reshuffle after the disatourous Hartlepool and local election results, said the prognosis was good because the cancer had been detected early, but that the diagnosis was “an enormous shock”.

Streeting, a former head of the National Union of Students who has been an MP since 2015, announced the news in a video message posted on Twitter what he described as a ‘personal statement’.

He said: “Back in early March, I went into hospital with a kidney stone and, at the time, a scan identified a lump on the same kidney. Around a month later, in April, unfortunately that lump was diagnosed as kidney cancer.

“While receiving a cancer diagnosis at the age of 38 has come as an enormous shock, the good news is because of that kidney stone the cancer has been caught early, my prognosis is very good, and I should make a full recovery.

“But it does mean I have to take time off work for treatment. My family have made it very clear – and actually so has Keir – that I will not be coming back until I’ve made a full recovery.

“Hopefully that won’t be too long but in the meantime, bear with me and thank you very much in advance for your support.”

Streeting also thanked party colleagues and activists who had worked with him during this month’s local election.

“I also want to say thank you to all of the Labour candidates and activists I joined on the doorstep because, without knowing it, they made such a difference to me during what was a really difficult time, taking my mind off things and helping me to crack on as normal,” he said.

Starmer tweeted: “The thoughts of the whole Labour party are with Wes and his family at this difficult time.

“Wes is a friend and a colleague and I know he’ll come back from this even stronger and more determined than ever before. I can’t wait to see him back in parliament as soon as possible.”

Streeting was a regular critic of Jeremy Corbyn, Streeting made his name in politics by constantly attacking both Corbyn and the Left of the Party, he soon rose through the ranks under Sir Keir Starmer.

He became a shadow minister when Starmer took over the party leadership, firstly in a Treasury role and then as shadow schools minister.

Boris Johnson also Tweeted Very sorry to hear this, Wes. Sending my best wishes for a full and speedy recovery, and I look forward to seeing you back on the green benches soon.

Of course, we all wish Wes Streeting a speedy recovery…

Kenmure Street protesters rejoice as men freed following immigration van standoff

One Glaswegian demonstrator stated: “you messed with the wrong city” after a seven-hour standoff with border force officials who tried to detain two men.

Demonstrators in Kenmure Street, Pollokshields, had blocked the immigration enforcement van for hours on Thursday.

The men who were detained in an immigration van following a raid in Pollokshields earlier today have been released following a seven-hour long mass protest.

Hundreds of activists surrounded a UK Border Agency van in Kenmure Street, containing two men from a nearby property. Officers surrounded the van and lined each end of the street. Protesters chanted “these are our neighbours, let them go”.

After the standoff Police bosses stated they were releasing the men “back into their community” after a risk assessment. They then asked members of the public to disperse.

In a public statement, Chief Superintendent Mark Sutherland said: “In order to protect the safety, public health and well-being of all people involved in the detention and subsequent protest in Kenmure Street, Pollokshields, today, Police Scotland has, following a suitable risk assessment, taken the operational decision to release the men detained by UK Immigration Enforcement back into their community meantime.

“In order to facilitate this quickly and effectively, Police Scotland is asking members of the public to disperse from the street as soon as possible.”

First Minister Nicola Sturgeon, also the constituency MSP for the south side, tweeted her ‘deep concern’ over the Home Office’s presence in the area, particularly while the community celebrates Eid.

Campaigners have told the Home Office “you messed with the wrong city” as two men detained in Glasgow by immigration enforcement were released after a day of protest.

Police Scotland released the two Indian nationals detained by Border Force officials in the city after people surrounded their van and prevented it from leaving on Thursday.

Demonstrators in Kenmure Street, Pollokshields, had blocked the immigration enforcement van for hours, with one lying underneath the vehicle.

Around 200 protesters were at the scene, with chants of “Leave our neighbours, let them go” and “Cops go home” being heard as a ring of police stood around the van.

The news of the men’s release has been hailed as a “massive victory” on social media, with campaigners calling for Scotland to have immigration devolved to prevent a repeat of today’s protest.

Protesters present cheered and applauded as the men were released from Home Office detention.

The Stand Up To Racism campaign tweeted: “Massive victory over racist Home Office ‘dawn raid’ by the people of Pollokshields #Glasgow #solidarity forever #RefugeesWelcome this is an example for every community to follow!”

In response to the police statement, former MSP and presiding officer Tricia Marwick tweeted: “I should think so too. It is the UK enforcement agency which is the threat to public safety.”

Father of detained man thanks Glasgow protesters

The father of a man taken in the Home Office raid has told how he is “upset” and “very thankful” to protesters as Police Scotland announce they will release those being detained.

Speaking to the Daily Record, Baldev Singh told how he is “hoping for a solution” for his son Lakhvir Singh as he was detained by UK Border Agency officers in the van.

In broken English, he said: “I am very upset. My son has been taken. We are very thankful to the protesters. We hope for a solution.”

Mohammad Asif, director of the Afghan Human Rights Foundation, was one of the hundreds of neighbours protesting against the action on Thursday.

The 54-year-old said: “We’re here against the hostile environment created by the Tories and the British state.

“The same people who run from the British and American bombs put at the back of the van right now. And they are about to be deported.

“And it’s on Eid you know … the guys are not even allowed to pray. How do you do that in a democratic society? It’s a sad day.”

Mr Asif, who left Afghanistan as a refugee in 2000, said the atmosphere among the protesters was peaceful.

Wafa Shaheen, head of services at the Scottish Refugee Council, said she was “shaken and angry” at the Home Office’s decision to “force people from their homes on the first day of Eid” and she condemned the “heavy-handed approach”.

Eight people charged with rioting over Bristol Kill the Bill protest

0

Eight people have been charged with rioting following the first Kill the Bill protest in Bristol.

They will appear before Bristol Magistrates’ Court on May 28 in connection the riot that saw 500 people march on Bridewell police station.

A ninth person has been charged with outraging public decency, Avon and Somerset Police stated.

The Crown Prosecution Service South West Complex Casework Unit has authorised charges following a review of evidence submitted by Avon and Somerset Police.

Ryan Roberts, aged 25, from Plymouth, who has already appeared in court, has now been charged with riot, as well as two arson offences, and will next appear at Bristol Crown Court at a date to be confirmed.

The following people have now been charged and will appear before Bristol Magistrates’ Court on 28 May 2021:

• Benjamin Rankin, aged 40, from Bedminster, Bristol – charged with riot and an arson offence

• Jasmine York, aged 26, from Arnos Vale, Bristol – charged with riot and an arson offence

• Kane Adamson, aged 21, from Bedminster, Bristol – charged with riot

• Mariella Gedge-Roberts, aged 26, from Clifton, Bristol – charged with riot

• An 18-year-old man from Springfield, Birmingham – charged with riot

• Brandon Lloyd, aged 21, from Henbury, Bristol – charged with riot

• Stuart Quinn, 46, from St Paul’s, Bristol – charged with riot

• Yasmin Schneider, aged 25, from St Paul’s, Bristol – charged with two counts of outraging public decency

Chief Superintendent Carolyn Belafonte of Avon and Somerset Police said Thursday’s charges were a “significant development” in the investigation into the night’s events.

“We remain resolute in our commitment to fully investigate offences committed in the vicinity of Bridewell police station and the wider city centre on the evening of Sunday 21 March and we anticipate there will be further people charged in the coming days and weeks as we continue to make further progress,” Chief Superintendent Belafonte said.

The Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

The “Kill the Bill” movement was sparked by the introduction of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, which would give police officers more power to impose conditions on protests, including noise and time constraints.

The bill has passed its second reading in parliament and is now in committee stage, where MPs are given time to further scrutinise the contents.

In April Jeremy Corbyn joined protesters at Hyde park and proclaimed:

“I want a society where it is safe to walk the streets, where you can speak out, you can demonstrate and you don’t have to seek the permission from the police or the home secretary to do so,”

https://youtu.be/kvcj4cs7VK0

The Police, Crime, Sentencing and Court Bill is an immense piece of proposed legislation that makes provisions for a broad range of issues in its nearly 300 pages. The bill — which covers England and Wales — introduces harsher penalties for serious crimes, ends a policy of early prison release for some offenders and prevents unauthorized encampments, among other sweeping measures.

But tied into some good legislation the bill also gives broad authority to police forces when it comes to handling protests — and that has proved to be a lightning rod.

Under current law, the police must first determine that a demonstration could result in serious public disorder, property damage or serious disruption to the life of the community before it can impose restrictions.

The new bill would offer much broader powers for the police. It will leave much to their own discretion, and potentially allow them to criminalise protests they deem a “public nuisance.”

The police, for example, would be allowed to set time and noise limits on rallies. Protesters who do not follow restrictions they “ought” to know about, even if they have not received a direct order from an officer, would be vulnerable to prosecution.

The bill also makes it possible for those who damage memorials to be sentenced to up to 10 years in prison.

The Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill is an assault on our freedoms and should be fought against at all levels.

The British people are many things and have many layers of complexities but the one thing that binds us all is our freedoms, those hard fought battles from the Magna Carta of 1215 to the Human Rights Act 1998, were not given they were won.

Freedom of speech and the right to protest peacefully are protected by the law both the common law and the Human Rights Act 1998 cover these fundamental rights.

Common law stipulates our rights: personal security, personal liberty and private property, and auxiliary rights necessary to secure them, such as access to justice. Rights to a fair trial, right to open justice and to freedom of speech are recognised both in the common law and in the Convention of Human rights.

The British people will and must guard their freedoms fiercely, lest they be taken away.

Former EU Brexit negotiator Michel Barnier calls for France to stop immigration for up to five years

The former Brexit negotiator says France should press the pause button on immigration.

Barnier showing his colours and playing to the French crowd on migration.

Barnier, who is tipped to run against Emmanuel Macron in next year’s French presidential election, called for a moratorium so that France could “take the time to verify, evaluate and if necessary change” its immigration policies.

Immigration to Europe is linked to “terrorist networks which use migration flows and infiltrate them,” he said.

Barnier, a conservative former finance minister, said immigration was a threat to the stability of French society:

“We need to take stock of the situation, stop family reunions,” he said. “We need to look at the way we give residency permits, health-related permits and the way we use the resources of our [benefits agency].”

“There are links between [immigration flows] and terrorist networks which try to infiltrate them,” he told RTL-LCI-Le Figaro on Sunday, adding that he didn’t think all immigrants “including those who are trying to cross the Mediterranean to find a better life, are major terrorists or delinquents.”

Asked whether his comments would call into question his reputation as a moderate Gaullist, Mr Barnier said: “The problems of immigration are not moderate. I know, as the politician that I am, to see the problems how they are and how French people experience them and to find solutions.”

Barnier claimed that the stoppage should last for three to five years and include discussions with other EU nations on policing the external borders of the Schengen area.

As an EU member, France would still be obliged to uphold the free movement of people within the bloc.

“The problems of immigration are not moderate,” Mr Barnier told France 2 television on Tuesday.

“I try as a politician to see problems as they are, the way that French people experience them, and to find solutions.

“I think that we need in effect to take some time, for three or five years, to suspend immigration.

“I’m not talking about students, I’m not talking about refugees, who should be treated with humanity and care.

“But we need to examine all the procedures from all sides. We need to talk to our neighbours on the question of Schengen, which needs to be applied with stricter border controls.”

Asked whether he meant the external Schengen border or internal EU borders, he said: “Yes, the external borders of Europe.”

As chief Brexit negotiator, Mr Barnier bemoaned the limits on free movement brought about by Britain’s decision to leave the EU.

The 70-year-old is tipped as a possible conservative candidate against Mr Macron at the 2022 presidential election.

The comments prompted outcry in the U.K., where Barnier has been the focus of intensive coverage throughout the Brexit negotiations.

Some commentators quipped that if Europe had taken a tougher stance on immigration as currently proposed by Barnier, Brexit may not have happened.

“Barnier advocating complete cessation of immigration for 3-5 years + suspension of Schengen. Ironic, because if the EU had allowed much milder restrictions on free movement of people, Brexit would probably never have happened. (And yes I know he probably means non-EU immigration),” tweeted Financial Times commentator Gideon Rachman.

The idea of a pause on immigration has become a popular among right-wing politicians in France in recent years.

Gilbert Collard, a French MEP from the far-right National Rally, described Mr Barnier as a “pickpocket” for adopting one of his party’s proposals.

The former Brexit negotiator’s bombshell proposal comes after he spent years battling against Britain’s efforts to take back control of our own borders.

The EU still at loggerheads over migrants policy

Filippo Grandi was meeting with the EU’s foreign affairs chief Josep Borrell on Tuesday as part of a three-day trip to Brussels, where he said the bloc plays a “crucial role in supporting conflict resolution and giving humanitarian assistance to those impacted” by forced displacement around the world.

Borrell also emphasised the EU’s commitment to addressing forced displacement and protecting those in need, which he says is “strongly reflected” in the EU’s latest migration pact, which was proposed by the European Commission last year.

The New Pact on Migration and Asylum aims to build confidence on the issue by striking a balance between responsibility and solidarity, which critics argue has not been there previously, after years of disagreement between member states.

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said last year that the new pact would strike a “reasonable balance” with all member states sharing the “benefits” and “burdens”.

A key aspect of the proposal allows EU countries that have been reluctant to take in migrants — such as Poland, Hungary and Austria — to contribute by returning migrants who don’t qualify for asylum or by helping with logistical support at the bloc’s borders.

Jérôme Riviere, a French MEP and member of Marine Le Pen’s far-right political party National Rally, says that the EU must be fair, but firm when dealing with migrants attempting to come to Europe.

“We have to say, look, Europe has a lot of problems to tackle, especially at the end of this covid crisis,” Riviere told Euronews. “And we are telling very kindly to these people, you cannot come in illegally. And if you want to come in illegally, there is no way you will ever find a legal way in our country. This is mainly how Australia has solved its problem. Anybody coming illegally has zero chance of ever being legalised.”

The European Commission’s latest migration proposal is still yet to be agreed upon by the European institutions.

Ballymurphy Inquest: Coroner finds 10 victims were entirely innocent

Families of Ballymurphy massacre victims ‘elated and relieved’ as their loved ones are declared innocent

Delivering her findings in Belfast on Tuesday, after the longest-running inquests in Northern Ireland’s history, Mrs Justice Siobhán Keegan said she hoped the findings may deliver some peace for the families.

The Ten people killed in west Belfast almost 50 years ago in the wake of an Army operation were “entirely innocent”, an inquest has found.

The inquest, which began in November 2018, examined the deaths in and around the Ballymurphy area of west Belfast in August 1971.

The shootings happened after an operation in which paramilitary suspects were detained without trial.

Victims included a priest trying to help the wounded and a mother of eight.

Nine of the 10 victims were killed by the Army, the coroner said.

The coroner could not definitively say who shot the tenth victim, John McKerr.

Mrs Justice Keegan, who delivered her findings over the course of more than two hours, said the deaths took place during Northern Ireland’s Troubles in a “highly charged and difficult environment”.

Nine of those were killed by the British Army without just reason, while the coroner was unable to say who shot John McKerr outside Corpus Christi Church.

Mr McKerr’s daughter Anne Ferguson said she was not disappointed the coroner was unable to say who exactly had killed her father, but was delighted he had been declared an innocent man.

“I’m elated, absolutely delighted. It was too long, that’s the shame of it, but I’m absolutely delighted,” she said following the verdicts.

“We set out to prove his innocence and that was said very forcibly today, we got the result we set out to get.

“It has been a long haul but today makes it worth it. I wondered, with the length of time that had passed, whether it was all going to be worth it in the end, it is. Ten tonnes have been lifted in weight off our shoulders.”

Mr McKerr previously served in the British Army during the Second World War.

“To hear it said publically that my father was innocent, that was all we wanted,” Mrs Ferguson said.

“He lost his hand in the war, he had no affiliation with any group, apart from the British Legion.”

Mother-of-eight Joan Connolly was also killed during the unrest, her daughters Philomena Morrison and Joan Connolly said they had “mixed emotions” following the verdicts.

They emotionally recounted the story of the last time they saw their mother.

Upon hearing the verdict they said they felt “elated” and a “sense of relief”.

“It’s brilliant after all the years us sisters can have some inner peace,” Ms Connolly said.

“We have cleared her name, she was innocent and they all are innocent and we have got justice and truth today and that’s all that matters.”

Joseph Murphy’s daughter Janet Donnelly said she was happy her father’s name had finally been cleared.

“I always knew my daddy was an innocent man but now the world knows,” she said.

“The official version 50 years ago that the people murdered in Ballymurphy were gunmen, gunwomen, today they were all exonerated as innocent civilians killed on the streets of Belfast.

“It was emotional, it’s a long, long journey, it’s been very emotional for all the families, we have waited 50 years to get our loved ones proved innocent.”

John Teggart, whose father Daniel was among those killed, said he felt “fantastic” when the verdict was read out.

“The family is ecstatic, it’s absolutely amazing. All our loved ones are declared innocent,” he said.

“It was a very emotional day, a very happy day, that’s the main point, it’s something we have campaigned for, for many, many years.”

He also paid tribute to the work of Mrs Justice Keegan during the inquest.

“All the years of hard work, all the families worked day and night, it was a 24-hour campaign, you woke up in the morning and you thought of the campaign, you went to sleep thinking of the campaign, that’s come to an end,” Mr Teggart said.

He said the families would now take a period of time to regroup.

“We’re going to focus on today, the day where all our loved ones were innocent. That was what we campaigned for, we campaigned very hard and that’s what we’ve done, that’s what we’re going to focus on,” Mr Teggart said.

“We’ll regroup in the weeks to come and decide what our next step, if any, for now we’ve corrected history and this is an example of why there should never be an amnesty (for military veterans who served in Northern Ireland), because of today.”

The 10 killed were Francis Quinn, Fr Hugh Mullan, Noel Phillips, Joan Connolly, Daniel Teggart, Joseph Murphy, Edward Doherty, John Laverty, Joseph Corr and John James McKerr. An 11th victim, Pat McCarthy, died of a heart attack.

The coroner was broadly critical of the military evidence provided to the inquests, and contrasted the general nature of the evidence provided by British army witnesses and statements with the specific picture painted by local eyewitnesses.

She was also critical of the limited investigations carried out at the time. In one case no contemporaneous evidence statements were collected, and she said the “failure to investigate at the time made my task extremely difficult”.

In regard to the deaths of Mr Quinn and Fr Mullan on August 9th, the coroner found that both were “innocent men, not armed or acting in any untoward manner” and who had instead gone to help a wounded man.

She said that on the balance of probabilities both were shot by the British army, and their use of force was “clearly disproportionate”.

Of Fr Mullan, Mrs Justice Keegan said she was “quite convinced he was a peacemaker” who was waving a white object when he was shot in the back.

On the deaths of Noel Phillips (19), Ms Connolly and Mr Teggart on August 9th and Mr Murphy, who was shot that evening but died of his wounds on August 22nd, the coroner said there was “no real doubt” in her mind that each of them had been shot by members of the British army’s Parachute Regiment who were situated in the Henry Taggart hall.

She found the use of force was “clearly disproportionate” and the deceased were unarmed and posing no threat.

Retired British Army general Sir Geoffrey Howlett, 89, today told families of the victims of the Ballymurphy massacre he had ‘enormous sympathy’ with them at an inquest investigating the killings of 10 people in west Belfast in August 1971

Speaking at the hearing in Belfast, in front of three rows of family members of the dead, Sir Geoffrey said: ‘I want just to say to you how sincerely I have enormous sympathy with you all … as relatives of those who were killed in this case on the ninth of August 1971.

‘I know something about bereavement because my father was killed in Italy in the war when I was 13 and I wanted to know everything about how it happened as well.

‘I just repeat what enormous sympathy I have with you all.’

The inquest heard a regimental note from the time said soldiers viewed the incident as them ‘inflicting severe casualties on the IRA’.

But the General said ‘most if not all were not IRA’.


Now we know they were all innocent.

Truth and Reconciliation Commission

We advocate a Truth and Reconciliation Commission that allows all sides a route to finding some peace for their families and loved ones.

The Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) was a court-like restorative justice body assembled in South Africa after the end of apartheid. Witnesses who were identified as victims of gross human rights violations were invited to give statements about their experiences, and some were selected for public hearings. Perpetrators of violence could also give testimony and request amnesty from both civil and criminal prosecution.

The TRC, the first of the 1003 held internationally to stage public hearings, was seen by many as a crucial component of the transition to full and free democracy in South Africa. Despite some flaws, it is generally (although not universally) thought to have been successful.

The Institute for Justice and Reconciliation was established in 2000 as the successor organisation of the TRC.

The giving of statements and amnesty from prosecution would have gone a long way to help bereaved families from all sides of the troubles.

Political blogger Craig Murray sentenced to eight months in prison for contempt of court

0

A Very Political Prosecution

Craig Murray watched two days of Alex Salmond’s trial in March 2020 from the public gallery of Edinburgh’s High Court and wrote about it on his website.

Judges subsequently ruled that Murray, 62, was in contempt of court relating to material capable of identifying four of the women accusing the former SNP leader of sexual abuse.

He has since lodged an appeal against the conviction.

Sentencing the former UK ambassador to Uzbekistan, Lady Dorrian said Murray knew there were court orders giving the women anonymity and he was “relishing” the potential disclosure of their identities.

At the virtual sentencing, Lord Justice Clerk Lady Dorrian explained that Murray deliberately risked jigsaw identification and that revealing complainers’ identities was “abhorrent”.

She said it was “particularly so, given the enormous publicity which the case in question attracted and continues to attract”.

Murray’s offending blog posts and tweets were written over a period of a month and remained up, unredacted, despite the blogger being told they could potentially lead to the identification of women who had made complaints about Mr Salmond, who was eventually acquitted of all 13 charges.

Lady Dorrian said: “It appears from the posts and articles that he was in fact relishing the task he set himself, which was essentially to allow the identities of complainers to be discerned – which he thought was in the public interest – in a way which did not attract sanction.”

She added: “These actions create a real risk that complainers may be reluctant to come forward in future cases, particularly where the case may be high profile or likely to attract significant publicity.

“The actions strike at the heart of the fair administration of justice.

“Notwithstanding the previous character of the respondent and his health issues, we do not think we can dispose of this case other than by way of a sentence of imprisonment.”

Murray was initially given 48 hours to hand himself in to a police station, but after a challenge by his lawyer Roddy Dunlop QC, this was extended to three weeks so Murray can appeal the sentence, although he has to surrender his passport.

In his previous mitigation submission, Mr Dunlop said Murray was a man of “impeccable character” and previously “untarnished reputation”, and said it is no exaggeration to say the retired diplomat is already suffering “significant punishment” from the impact of the case.

Mr Dunlop said sending Murray to prison would be “harsh to the point of being disproportionate”, and he urged judges to deal with the matter by way of a fine.

He said: “Allowing that the finding of contempt has been ruled by this court to be justified, the question is whether, given all the circumstances, that justification extends yet further to countenancing imprisonment, to taking a retired diplomat with an exemplary background away from his wife, his 11-year-old son, and his baby.


Murry states in his blog “You should also know that, as it was never my intention to identify anyone, I have pending the outcome of my trial temporarily censored those sentences in my articles complained of by the prosecution as causing jigsaw identification, even though I strongly deny that they do. Prior to receiving the indictment, I had no idea precisely what the complaint referred to.  I have also censored the indictment of its references to the same material. I do not believe there was any problem with the originals; but it is a very few sentences and my lawyers rather insisted. I hope you will not feel I am too cowardly in this.

I have refused to censor those larger passages the Crown complain of where I state that the charges were a fit-up and a state sponsored conspiracy. I believe here there is a vital argument of freedom of speech, and I will not bend.” Link

For many it is clear that Murry was singled out. The state has chosen to prosecute the political dissident and whistleblower and not the mainstream media who were collectively responsible for far more identifications of complainants.

It seems justice is to prosecute Craig Murray and nobody else. Is there a single person who honestly believes that it is a coincidence that they have prosecuted the only journalist who fairly reported the defence case against this government led fit-up.

If this was a sentence to discourage others, Job done!

“For what purpose? The response might well be “pour decourager les autres” (French for to discourage others). If that is the purpose, job done. Mr Murray’s blogging is inevitably hamstrung by the ruling itself, the decision is and has been widely publicised.

“If anyone out there thinks that playing with fire in the field of jigsaw identification is a zero sum game, their views have been disabused by the ruling this court has already made.”

Craig Murry has been an advocate of truth and honesty, his blog has helped many people understand the Greyzone of modern politics by shining a light in the dark. For many, this will be seen as an attack on freedom of expression and a warning to political Bloggers and alternative News media outlets that the state will bring down the full weight of the Law others will see comparisons with the sentencing of Tommy Robinson jailed for contempt of court after he was found guilty of interfering with the trial of a sexual grooming gang at Leeds Crown Court in May 2018.

If you would like to help Craig Murry in fighting his conviction and bringing about an appeal you can do by donating to his fighting fund here: Appeal For Defence Funds 

Queen’s Speech 2021: Tories unveil plans on free speech, policing and voter ID

0

Government sets out plans for the next term of parliament.

The government has unveiled plans for the coming parliament in a Queen’s speech that combined interventionist economics with openly populist moves in areas such as free speech, policing and voter ID.

The 26 proposed laws unveiled in the monarch’s brief address, which the government writes for her, contained no particular surprises. The bulk of the measures were either already in progress or widely briefed in advance.

As expected, there is still no formal plan to reform social care, despite Johnson’s pledge to do so in his first speech as prime minister. The speech simply said proposals on social care “will be brought forward”, with no detail or timetable given.

“My government’s priority is to deliver a national recovery from the pandemic that makes the United Kingdom stronger, healthier and more prosperous than before,” she said. “To achieve this, my government will level up opportunities across all parts of the United Kingdom, supporting jobs, businesses and economic growth and addressing the impact of the pandemic on public services.”

There will be a health and care bill, but this is to enact a planned shake-up of the NHS by Matt Hancock, the health and social care secretary, which will give ministers more power over the health service in England. There is also a pledge to tackle obesity, a personal aim of the prime minister after he blamed his weight for his serious bout of Covid.

A series of bills cement Johnson’s centralised and infrastructure-heavy post-Brexit economic approach, one aimed at holding the support of voters in former Labour heartlands in the north of England and Midlands.

A subsidy control bill will set out new state aid rules, while other planned laws would mark out the next stage of the HS2 rail link, from Manchester to Crewe. Another would extend high-speed broadband and 5G mobile coverage. There would be moves to create eight new freeports, a flagship elements of Johnson’s post-Brexit economic offering.

There would be changes to planning laws, with the intention of making homebuilding more straightforward, a move openly briefed by No 10 as aimed at creating millions more property-owning Conservative voters.

Planning Bill: The government wants to modernise the planning system so more homes can be built and more people can own their own home. It also said it wants to enhance the rights of renters. Leasehold Reform (Ground Rent) Bill This will ensure leaseholders of new, long residential leases cannot be charged ground rent “for no tangible service”.

Building Safety Bill: A new Building Safety Regulator law will be established to ensure tragedies like Grenfell “are never repeated”.

“Rigorous” safety standards for construction products will be introduced and a “clearer path” to redress for homeowners.

Another appeal to voters in former Labour areas would be a new bill on further education, setting in place existing proposals to improve the sector, and give people the chance to study at any point in their life.

UK committed to achieving net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050: The Queen says the government will “invest in new green industries to create jobs, while protecting the environment”.

“The United Kingdom is committed to achieving net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 and will continue to lead the way internationally by hosting the COP26 Summit in Glasgow,” she says.

She says legislation will set binding environmental targets – the Environmental Bill – and legislation will also be brought forward to ensure the United Kingdom has, and promotes, the highest standards of animal welfare (Animal Welfare Bill, Kept Animals Bill, Animals Abroad Bill).

The Queen says that the United Kingdom will host the G7 Summit and lead the global effort to secure a robust economic recovery from the pandemic.

“My ministers will deepen trade ties in the Gulf, Africa and the Indo-Pacific,” she says.

Ministers remain sensitive to criticism about the impact on millions of the world’s poorest people of a cut in UK aid spending, the speech said the government “will continue to provide aid where it has the greatest impact on reducing poverty and alleviating human suffering”.

“My government will uphold human rights and democracy across the world. It will take forward a global effort to get 40 million girls across the world into school.”

Inequality and conversion therapy plans explained: The government said “measures” will be brought forward to address racial and ethnic disparities. It also said it will move to ban conversion therapy entirely, with new funding, expected by this summer, to support victims.

Strengthened democracy: The Queen says her government will “strengthen and renew democracy and the constitution”.

She says a law will be introduced to ensure the integrity of elections, protect freedom of speech and restore the balance of power between the executive, legislature and the courts with the Electoral Integrity Bill, Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill, Judicial Review Bill, Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Bill. 

Her Majesty says her ministers will promote the strength and integrity of the union and that measures will be brought forward to strengthen the devolved government in Northern Ireland and address the legacy of the past with the Northern Ireland Bill.

There will be a controversial plan for a bill guaranteeing free speech in universities, which could allow speakers who are disinvited to sue for compensation.

Restore power to choose election date: Boris Johnson is to go ahead with plans to restore the power of the prime minister to choose the timing of general elections.

A Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Bill, announced in the Queen’s Speech earlier today, will repeal the Fixed-term Parliaments Act (FTPA) which led to Commons deadlock over Brexit.

Voter ID: The Queen said, “legislation will be introduced to ensure the integrity of elections”. This is a controversial reform which will mean photo ID would be needed in order to vote. Labour call the plans ‘cynical and ugly’ arguing those on low incomes and from ethnic minorities are less likely to have ID. Yet it was originally a Labour policy to have National Identity Cards, in March 2006:
After several defeats in the House of Lords, a compromise was reached and the Identity Cards Act became law. In 2010 the Tories and the Lib Dems carried out their threat to scrap the scheme during their Coalition government.

Environment Bill explained: This will set binding environmental targets after the UK committed to achieving net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 ahead of hosting COP26 in Glasgow this year.

It will also set out commitments to restoring nature and biodiversity, tackling air pollution, cutting plastic use and will “revolutionise how we recycle”. An independent Office for Environmental Protection will be created.

Dormant Assets Bill: An additional £880 million of dormant assets will be released for social and environmental initiatives.

Safety and security: The Queen stated the government will introducing measures to increase the safety and security of its citizens. She says legislation will increase sentences for the most serious and violent offenders and ensure the timely administration of justice with the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill. Proposals will be brought forward to address violence, including against women and girls, and to support victims – the Draft Victims Bill.

She says measures will also be brought forward to establish a fairer immigration system that “strengthens the United Kingdom’s borders and deters criminals who facilitate dangerous and illegal journeys” with the New Plan for Immigration Legislation.

She continues: “My government will lead the way in ensuring internet safety for all, especially for children [Draft Online Safety Bill] whilst harnessing the benefits of a free, open and secure internet.”

Northern Ireland (Minister, Elections and Petitions of Concerns) Bill, Legacy Legislation explained: The first bill will give Northern Ireland’s devolved government more powers. Under the second bill, legislation will be introduced to address the legacy of the Troubles to deliver “better outcomes for victims and survivors”. It will end investigations into the past as part of the government’s commitment to veterans.

Armed Forces to get biggest spending increase in 30 years: The Queen announced the government will provide “our gallant Armed Forces with the biggest spending increase in 30 years, taking forward their programme of modernisation and reinforcing the United Kingdom’s commitment to NATO”.

She says ministers will “honour and strengthen the Armed Forces Covenant”, placing it in law with the Armed Forces Bill.

The Queen says that measures will also be introduced to provide National Insurance contribution relief for employers of veterans with the National Insurance Contributions Bill.

Countering foreign hostile activity: A law will be introduced to counter hostile activity by foreign states with the Counter-State Threats Bill and Telecommunications (Security) Bill.

“My ministers will implement the Integrated Review of Security, Defence, Development and Foreign Policy,” she says.

New Plan for Immigration Legislation explained: The government will put forward plans for a “fairer immigration system” that also deters criminals facilitating “dangerous and illegal journeys”. It will enable the government to remove “those with no right to be here” more easily.

National Insurance Contributions Bill explained: Eight new freeports are to be built to create “hubs” for trade and to regenerate communities, the government said. Employers in freeports will get National Insurance contributions relief. The relief will also be introduced for employers of veterans and for the self-employed who receive NHS Test and Trace payments.

Opposition Party responses

The Greens

In a response to the Queen’s speech, Caroline Lucas, the Green MP, said the government’s plans for the climate crisis did not match the scale of the challenge. She said:

The prime minister’s talk about building a strong recovery from Covid will take us down the road to disaster unless it is a green recovery, focused on decarbonisation, creating sustainable businesses and jobs and accelerating the path to net zero.

The government also has to abandon the fixation with growth and recognise that prioritising GDP growth above all other measures is what is fuelling the climate and ecological crises. The warnings are coming thick and fast that we have to change our approach, moving to an economic model which prioritises wellbeing and the health of people and planet.

Lucas also described the plans to require voters to show photo ID at polling stations as a “blatant attempt at voter suppression [that] comes straight out of the US Republicans’ playbook”.

SNP

In his response to the Queen’s speech Ian Blackford, the SNP leader at Westminster, said:

Boris Johnson has completely failed to deliver the investment and change required to build a strong, fair and equal recovery. Instead the Tories are imposing the long-term damage of austerity cuts, Brexit and a power grab against Scotland’s will.

The Tories are repeating the same mistakes they made after the last economic crisis, by forcing through damaging cuts that are threatening Scotland’s recovery. Instead of building a fairer society, the Tories are entrenching inequality and pushing people into poverty by imposing a public sector pay freeze, cuts to universal credit, and an “efficiency review” of public services.

Lib Dems

The Liberal Democrats have issued this verdict on the Queen’s speech from Sir Ed Davey, the party leader. He said:

We must rebuild as a fairer, greener and more caring country in the aftermath of Covid. So it is crushingly disappointing that the government’s plans will fail on every account – still failing small businesses and the self-employed, still not rising properly to the climate challenge and still ignoring millions of people caring for loved ones at home.

Their planning reforms will rip powers away from local people and communities in favour of wealthy property developers, threatening our environment and treasured green spaces. Their cruel asylum plans will stop people fleeing violence and persecution, from seeking sanctuary in the UK. And long delayed reforms to social care have been pushed back into the long grass once again, despite the pressures we have seen on care homes and carers this last year.

Boris Johnson has utterly failed to deliver an ambitious programme to respond to the real challenges people are facing after this terribly difficult year.

As of yet 3hours on, nothing from the Leader of the Labour party Sir Keir Starmer.

Rearranging the deck chairs won’t save Starmer’s sinking ship

The botched Labour reshuffle

The Labour reshuffle is little more than rearranging the deck chairs, in fact, many are wondering what exactly was the purpose other than to be seen to be doing something or ultimately to divert away from the backlash of sacking Rayner.

Sir Keir Starmer was facing criticism after losing the Hartlepool by-election and control of 8 Labour councils. He made a statement declaring he would take full responsibility then promptly sacked Angela Rayner as the party’s chair and campaigns coordinator.

Ex-shadow chancellor John McDonnell said she had been made a “scapegoat”.

The negative response from Labour members caused Starmer to quickly reshuffle his team like many things Starmer does, it was rash, confused and disjointed, Angela Rayner’s sacking from the Party chair and national campaigns coordinator has been mitigated by placing her as shadow Cabinet Office minister; of course, she remains deputy party leader that was a democratically voted in position voted in by the members.

It all seems to be a series of knee jerk reactions all gaining media attention, all moving away from the disastrous Hartlepool byelection and the appalling local elections.

Anneliese Dodds: Sacked from shadow chancellor to party chair

Anneliese Dodds was sacked as Shadow Chancellor tonight as Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer took the knife to his top team following disastrous election results.

Dodds, who had faced months of grumblings about her performance, has been demoted to become party chairwoman – the job Angela Rayner old job.

Shadow Education Secretary Kate Green had been among those whose positions were said to be under threat.

Starmer was forced to scale back his planned reshuffle as some frontbenchers staged a revolt – faced with taking lesser posts or quitting altogether to avoid the humiliation.

He only began ringing frontbenchers to confirm they were moving posts or keeping their roles at 9pm on Sunday night.

Rachel Reeves, promoted from shadow Cabinet Office minister to shadow chancellor

Reeves a former Bank of England economist, is close aid to Starmer and worked closely with him to develop the party’s vote losing Brexit policy implemented in the 2019 manifesto during her post as shadow Cabinet Office minister.

Labour will be tougher than Tories on benefits, promised Reeves

In 2013 Labour’s new shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer ‘Rachel Reeves vowed to cut the welfare bill and force long-term jobless to take up work offers or lose state support’

Reeves said that under Labour the long-term unemployed would not be able to “linger on benefits” for long periods but would have to take up a guaranteed job offer or lose their state support.

Adopting a firm party line on welfare, the former Bank of England economist stressed that a key part of her task would be to explore the “myth” that Labour is soft on benefit costs, and to prove instead that it will be both tough and fair.

Obviously, another spoon-fed centrist who has never had the misfortune to be on welfare but sees those working class that have found themselves in this unfortunate position, a result of a million valid reasons including both the Labour and Tory governments mismanagement of the economy as little more than scroungers.

As for Policy Labour are still advocating TINA

There is no alternative.

TINA There is no alternative

Tony Benn once said: “..You see there are two flames burning in the human heart all the time. The flame of anger against injustice, and the flame of hope you can build a better world. And my job at 83 is going round and fanning both flames…because people need encouragement”

The job of ensuring any threat of socialism doesn’t gain a toehold in the UK is being conducted by Sir Keir Starmer, he is doubling down on his orchestrated attack on the Left. Starmer is not here to challenge the status quo but to uphold the establishment.

His job is to snuff out those flames of anger at injustice and burning desire of hope, Starmer will create disillusionment and apathy, his Labour Party will become a political waiting room where activist go to die, above the door a sign reading ‘Don’t leave fight!’ intermittently flashing ‘Not yet!.

The best Labour will offer is TINA There is no alternative The phrase was used to signify Thatcher’s claim that the market economy is the only system that works, and that debate about this is over. One critic characterised the meaning of the slogan as: “Globalised capitalism, so called free markets and free trade were the best ways to build wealth, distribute services and grow a society’s economy. Deregulation’s good, if not God.”

To get their the Parties mantra will be Left wing policies fail the country rejected them.

Repetition makes a statement seem more true, regardless of whether it is or not. Understanding this effect can help you avoid falling for propaganda.

Starmer wants to take the Labour party to the right. The only alternative he will offer is to become an alternative Tory Party, he claims Labour’s 2019 policies were too far to the Left. But the reality is there was only one policy that lost Labour 60 seats.


STARMER’S OWN SECOND REFERENDUM POLICY

Since 2019 Starmer has attacked Left wing policies especially those he himself stood in the 2019 manifesto that got him elected. He had the audacity to blame those policies for Labour’s appalling general election result where Labour lost 60 seats.


Of those 60 seats, 6 seats were in Scotland 54 seats Labour lost were English 52 were strong Leave-voting constituencies.
Constituencies that had warned the Labour Party HQ that they would lose if the shadow Brexit secretary continued to insist on his Brexit policy.

Starmer and Mandelson blame the slightly Left-wing policies for Labour losses.

Listen to the Corbyn interview

Both Sir Keir Starmer and his boss Lord Mandelson, coincidently the Leader and director of the so-called People’s vote, that organisation that cynically used to remainers to undermine Jeremy Corbyn and Labour while giving the Tories a free pass on Brexit have both constantly blamed Left wing policies for Labour’s defeat.

The problem with this is that Labour’s policies are, in fact, overwhelmingly popular: significant majorities of voters support funding the NHS, raising the minimum wage, building council homes and other such social democratic policies.
There is no doubt on the doorstep some people were verbally opposed to the Labour Party and expressed their concerns at Jeremy Corbyn’s past, irrelevant of truth.

This makes it easy for Sir Keir Starmer and his propaganda machine to associate the lie with the “illusion of truth” associating it to why Labour lost the general election of 2019.

Sir Keir Starmer hopes his seeds of deceit, that whisper of a lie, will grow and becomes an “illusion of truth” It’s much the same lie as the Tory’s used when they blamed Labour for the World’s financial crisis of 2007–2008.

They repeated the lie that Labour had brought about the financial crash so many times over so many years that an audible grown could be heard every time it was mentioned on programs such as question time. Unfortunately, the method worked and even today that very lie is still repeated.

Labour have one chance before it becomes the other Tory Party. Drop Starmer now. Call a special conference, reassert its own identity, use its own socialist foundations to articulate a vision of the future. When a consensus is made on Labour’s destination chose the best person to captain the ship on its destination. The alternative is to keep choosing leaders who then recreate the party in their own image, tacking from Left to right. This does nothing but moves the party further away from its foundations and the people it was created to represent along with the fact it escalates the constant civil war between factions.

Right now we are in the midst of that civil war with the Right wing blaming Long-Corbyn and the Left understanding only real opposition and Left values and policies can beat the Tories.

The other deck chairs within Starmer’s Labour Party.

Nick Brown, a veteran of Blair and Brown governments, was ousted as Chief Whip and replaced by his deputy Sir Alan Campbell.

A spokesman for Mr Brown insisted it was on good terms, saying: “Nick thinks it’s a reasonable time for Nick to move on. He and Keir have parted on good terms, with mutual respect. He wishes Keir and the new Chief Whip every success.”

Shadow Housing Secretary Thangam Debbonaire, who was tipped for the chop, has been moved aside to become Shadow Leader of the Commons. She replaces Valerie Vaz, who had been one of the few surviving ministers from Corbyn’s shadow cabinet.

Lucy Powell, who served under Ed Miliband and led the inquest after Labour’s 2019 election disaster, has been promoted to the Shadow Cabinet as the new Shadow Housing Secretary.

Also promoted is Wes Streeting, a prominent critic of the former leader Jeremy Corbyn who takes a new job of Shadow Child Poverty Secretary. And Miliband-era shadow minister Shabana Mahmood takes Ms Rayner’s job of campaign co-ordinator.

Here is what Labour’s shadow cabinet looks like now – the changes are in bold:

  • Deputy Leader, Shadow First Secretary of State, Shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Shadow Secretary of State for the Future of Work: Angela Rayner
  • Party Chair & Chair of Labour Policy Review: Anneliese Dodds
  • National Campaign Coordinator: Shabana Mahmood
  • Shadow Chief Whip: Alan Campbell
  • Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer: Rachel Reeves
  • Shadow Chief Secretary to HM Treasury: Bridget Phillipson
  • Shadow Secretary of State for Foreign & Commonwealth Affairs: Lisa Nandy
  • Shadow Secretary of State for the Home Department: Nick Thomas-Symonds
  • Shadow Secretary of State for Justice: David Lammy
  • Shadow Secretary of State for Defence: John Healey
  • Shadow Secretary of State for Health and Social Care: Jonathan Ashworth
  • Shadow Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy: Ed Miliband
  • Shadow Secretary of State for Work and Pensions: Jonathan Reynolds
  • Shadow Secretary of State for International Trade: Emily Thornberry
  • Shadow Secretary of State for Education: Kate Green
  • Shadow Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport: Jo Stevens
  • Shadow Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs: Luke Pollard
  • Shadow Secretary of State for Communities & Local Government: Steve Reed
  • Shadow Secretary of State for Housing: Lucy Powell
  • Shadow Secretary of State for Transport: Jim McMahon
  • Shadow Secretary of State for International Development: Preet Gill
  • Shadow Secretary of State for Wales: Nia Griffith
  • Shadow Secretary of State for Scotland: Ian Murray
  • Shadow Secretary of State for Northern Ireland: Louise Haigh
  • Shadow Secretary of State for Women and Equalities: Marsha de Cordova
  • Shadow Leader of the House of Commons: Thangam Debbonaire
  • Shadow Attorney General: Charlie Falconer
  • Shadow Secretary of State for Mental Health: Rosena Allin-Khan
  • Shadow Secretary of State for Child Poverty: Wes Streeting
  • Shadow Secretary of State for Young People and Democracy: Cat Smith
  • Shadow Secretary of State for Employment Rights & Protections: Andy McDonald
  • Shadow Leader of the House of Lords: Angela Smith
  • Opposition Chief Whip in the House: Tommy McAvoy