“Party Unity” has been a buzzword in the Labour Party for many years and, like the Golden Fleece, seem to be a prize that is incredibly hard to achieve. As a concept Party Unity has burst forth again with the election of Sir Keir Starmer as leader, and is currently being waved around by the Starmer Faithful as a talisman, a warning, and a cosh. It is somewhat ironic that the call for unity is coming from the factions that have done their level best to disrupt the party and undermine the last leader.
Perhaps we could have a little look at the recent history of “Party Unity”?
The Labour Party ‘Glory’ Days (The Blair Years)
If we flip back to the heady days of 1997 when Tony Blair took Labour into Downing Street (remember “Things Can Only Get Better”?) there was a new sense of unity, founded on the euphoria of victory. I wasn’t a member of the party then, but I have always been a Labour supporter (with a mother whose politics lay far to the right of the Wicked Witch — it made for an interesting upbringing), I was active in politics at Loughborough University and demonstrated against Thatcher (at that time the Secretary of State for Education — yes, I am that old!).
Not being inside the party I only saw the forward march of Labour, and many of the great things it achieved. What I saw were the improvements in education, the introduction of Sure Start, the improvements in the NHS, and many other improvements in Britain. And of course what I saw was what the Party wanted me to see as the greatest ever media manager (Alastair Campbell) ensured that I saw was what I was allowed to see.
What I didn’t see, from the outside, was the ever increasing centralisation of power within the party, the increasing control over conference and the NEC (and Party Policy), the influence of power within the regions, and the parachuting of the chosen into safe seats. Of course the party appeared to have great unity — the party wouldn’t allow anything else!
The Interregnum
Gordon Brown took over as Labour leader on the 27th June 2007 and was PM during one of the worst economic disasters the world has ever seen, when the banking system came within a hair’s breadth of complete collapse. The problem lay with the greed of the banking system, and the lack of regulation that it had managed to get politicians to accept, and when the American sub-prime mortgage market collapsed it nearly took the world banking system with it.
Gordon Brown was massively effective in grasping the problem and forcing world leaders to address it — President Obama credited Gordon with helping to pull World leaders together to address the problem. Of course the economy took a terrible hit and the Tories took every opportunity to suggest that the problems were caused by Labour, rather than accepting that Labour had resolved the problems.
The result was that Labour lost the 2010 general election to be replaced by a Tory/Liberal coalition government led by the Conservatives and David Cameron, and so the word “Austerity” started to creep into the political Agenda.
Gordon Brown resigned on the 10th May 2010 and Ed Miliband was elected leader on the 25th September 2010, beating his brother David.
Labour’s overriding principle seemed to be not rocking the boat — it seemed to think that the party had had a thrashing (remember that the Tories only had a minority government) and sack-cloth and ashes were much more appropriate than challenging the Tory lie that “It’s all down to Labour over spending” (even Osborne subsequently admitted that was not true).
Probably the lowest and most iniquitous moments came when the party threw, metaphorically, the poorest in society under the fabled bus. This happened in two events.
The first challenge to the party’s integrity came in the response to the government’s Welfare Reform and Work Bill. The party recommended abstention against the bill that formally introduced austerity — a political philosophy whereby the poorest in society are forced to pay for the failure and mistakes of the richest in society. Was that Unity?
The second came in the early days of ‘Poverty Porn' where ‘documentaries’ were made showing the lives of the poor and those on benefits. Keir Starmer, who had been appointed DPP in 2008 by Labour, announced that benefit cheats would face 10 years in prison, without addressing what tax cheats should face. Was that Unity?
The 2015 Leadership Election
After the disastrous 2015 general election Ed Miliband resigned as leader of the Labour Party, triggering a leadership election. Amongst various meetings to identify contenders for the leadership Jeremy Corbyn was put forward as the candidate for the left (almost as the last one to take a step backwards, and without expecting to get enough PLP and EPLP nominations to make it to the ballot paper).
A number of MPs supported Jeremy’s nomination, some because they were on the left of the party, some to open the political discussion, some to ensure that any left candidate was totally humiliated, and some (almost certainly) for a joke. Regardless of their reasons, the result was that Jeremy was on the ballot for leader and the election result was in the hands of the membership.
During the campaign a number of MPs that had nominated Jeremy supported other candidates, and some actually stated that they regretted nominating him. Was that Unity?
John McTernan, a former advisor to Tony Blair, said the 35 MPs who put Jeremy Corbyn on the ballot paper should be “ashamed of themselves” after a poll put him on course to win and reportedly called them “morons”. Was that Unity?
The ‘Leaked Report’ included allegations that the staff members at Labour party headquarters looked for ways to exclude members from voting, who they believed would vote for Corbyn. The staff members referred to this activity as “trot busting”, “bashing trots” and “trot spotting”. Whilst these are allegations (currently being investigated by the Forde enquiry) they tie in perfectly with multiple reports of mass unjustified suspensions on social media at the time. Was that Unity?
Corbyn becomes Leader
Saturday 12 September 2015 — A special conference announces Jeremy Corbyn as Leader, and Tom Watson as Deputy Leader.
On 13 September 2015, Corbyn unveiled his Shadow Cabinet. Whilst it included left wing long term allies such as John McDonnell and Diane Abbott, it also included members from across the Labour political spectrum, such as Hilary Benn, Lisa Nandy, and Owen Smith. This was the first Shadow Cabinet with more women than men. That was Unity!
December 2015 and Jess Phillips says in a YouTube interview with Guardian journalist Owen Jones regarding Labour winning the next general election “If that’s not going to happen — and I’ve said that to him and his staff to their faces — the day it comes that you are hurting us more than you are helping us, I won’t knife you in the back — I’ll knife you in the front.” Was that Unity?
From day one of his leadership there had been a constant sniping from MPs and supposedly party stalwarts, which of course was lapped up by the MSM. There was always a steady stream of the likes of Ian Austin, Jess Phillips, Alastair Campbell, etc., regularly appearing on political programmes, and especially Radio 4’s Today programme to slag off Jeremy or the latest policies. Was that Unity?
Although the right wing newspapers were always going to attack Labour, and particularly the left, the supposedly left leaning Guardian/Observer never missed a trick when it came to undermining the leadership, either by direct opinion pieces or by damning with faint praise. One opinion piece with Jo Cox and Neil Coyle was titled “We nominated Jeremy Corbyn for the leadership. Now we regret it”. Was that Unity?
One of the regular snipers was Tom Watson (the Deputy Leader) who, despite promising to support whoever was elected leader, never missed an opportunity to have a dig, making no secret of his dislike and contempt. Was that Unity?
Tom Watson also made no secret of his contempt for much of the membership, blocking anyone on social media who dared to challenge any of his views. Was that Unity?
The Chicken Coup
Following the EU referendum disquiet amongst MPs increased dramatically, saying that Jeremy had failed to campaign (despite he and John McDonnell campaigning in cities up and down the country, and many other MPs like Hilary Benn doing very little). It subsequently became clear that the coup had been planned for probably six months, but was triggered on 26 June 2016 when Hilary Benn was sacked from the shadow cabinet for plotting the coup.
Over the rest of the day 11 shadow cabinet members resigned, followed by a further 8 the next day (it should be noted that Keir Starmer (whose supporters are now calling for unity) resigned on the 27th). Was that Unity?
The speed, sequence, and publicity showed that the resignations had been carefully orchestrated to cause maximum damage to Jeremy and the party, and it later turned out that the PR firm Portland Communications, that has many links to right-wing Labour MPs, had been involved. Was that Unity?
But it gets worse… On the 28th June there was a packed meeting of the PLP where MP after MP attacked Jeremy, pausing only to text journalists outside. A non-Corbynista MP told Diane Abbott afterwards that he had never seen anything so horrible and he had felt himself reduced to tears. “Nobody talked about Jeremy Corbyn’s politics. There was only one intention: to break him as a man.” Was that Unity?
The meeting ended with a Vote of No Confidence which is not in the rule book, being passed 172–40 — Corbyn refused to step down for that reason, although Tom Watson and Ed Miliband encouraged him to resign. However he had the support of several union leaders who issued a joint statement saying that Corbyn was “the democratically-elected leader of Labour and his position should not be challenged except through the proper democratic procedures provided for in the party’s constitution”. That was Unity.
The 2016 Leadership Election
Eventually on the 11th July Angela Eagle (one of the Coup plotters) launched a leadership challenge, followed two days later by Owen Smith. Despite attempts to require Jeremy to be nominated (which probably would have prevented him from being on the ballot) the NEC blocked it, determining that as the current incumbent he didn’t need to be nominated. That was Unity.
And surprise, surprise, it is alleged in the ‘Leaked Report’ that again staffers looked for ways to suspend probable Corbyn supporters, and again that appears to tie up with numerous reports on social media. Was that Unity?
On the 19th July Angela withdrew leaving a straight fight between Owen and Jeremy. The result was announced on 24 September 2016. Jeremy won the election with 313,209 votes, increasing his share of the vote from 59.5% to 61.8% compared with the result of the 2015 leadership election, and receiving some 62,000 more votes than in 2015.
Jeremy’s Leadership — The Early Days
Following his original election as leader Jeremy moved to take over the Leader Of The Opposition’s office, but the transition was not as smooth as it should have been. Some information is in the ‘Leaked Report’ but some of the people from Jeremy’s office have also revealed what really happened in the transfer.
When Jeremy’s team entered the offices they found that most of the resources had been stripped, including computers. They also found that most of the support they could expect from the party machine was mysteriously absent. Was that Unity?
From the moment Jeremy took over the Leadership rumours started relating to antisemitism. Prominent individuals inside and out of the party started to suggest that Jeremy was anti-Semitic, and that he was promoting antisemitism within the party, or that he was supporting anti-Semites, or that he was preventing investigation of antisemitism. Was that Unity?
People who had already declared that they had left the party dramatically declared that they couldn’t vote for a party led by Jeremy. On the 9th April 2017 Maureen Lipman (who claimed to be a Labour supporter) said ‘Corbyn made me a Tory’ during Labour anti-Semitism protest and called for his resignation. The Jewish actress, 71, joined a protest outside Labour HQ at Westminster and branded the Labour leader as an ‘anti-Semite’. This was the same Maureen Lipman who said in 2014, she could no longer vote for Labour while it was led by Ed Miliband (who is also Jewish). In an article in Standpoint magazine, she condemned Mr Miliband for supporting a backbench motion to recognise Palestine as a state. Was that Unity?
The 2017 General Election
The General Election was called by Theresa May on the 19th April 2017 in the hope that she could increase her majority to give her better negotiating power with the EU. The NEC produced a radical manifesto which, whilst it proved popular with the membership, received a lukewarm reception from much of the PLP. Jeremy campaigned up and down the country speaking to large crowds. The MSM sprang into action and leapt onto any negative comment from any MP or party grandee, many of which were only too happy to be interviewed and give underwhelming support to the party. Was that Unity?
The ‘Leaked Report’ alleges that there was a concerted effort by party HQ to undermine the party campaign. Due to the snap election candidates were imposed on CLPs, and subsequent analysis showed that there was a distinct bias towards centrist and Blairite candidates. The report also suggests that campaign funds were diverted to right wing candidate’s constituencies, even those that were safe seats. At the same time right wing candidates in safe seats, whilst not actively campaigning against the party, were distinctly lack-lustre in their efforts. Whilst the ‘Leaked Report’ activities are alleged (until the Forde investigation reports — and if it actually investigates them) much of the performance of prominent candidates was recorded in a documentary, which showed their disappointment when the election started to turn towards Labour. Was that Unity?
The combined objective of (allegedly) staffers and some of the right wing candidates appeared to be that they were happy to lose the election so badly that Corbyn would have to resign — they would prefer a Tory government to a Labour one lead by a true socialist. Was that Unity?
Blairite Interference
22nd July 2015 and the Independent quotes Tony Blair, speaking at the Progress think-tank, as saying “Let me make my position clear: I wouldn’t want to win on an old-fashioned leftist platform. Even if I thought it was the route to victory, I wouldn’t take it.” He went on to say anyone who supported Jeremy Corbyn “in their heart” needed to think about getting “a heart transplant”. Was that Unity?
21st February 2017 Peter Mandelson is quoted in the Guardian saying: “I try to undermine Jeremy Corbyn ‘every single day’. Something, however small it may be — an email, a phone call or a meeting I convene — every day I try to do something to save the Labour party from his leadership.” Was that Unity?
Despite the good results in the 2017 election (or probably because of it) from this time onwards Blairite MPs and grandees upped their appearance on any and every political programme they were invited (or could inveigle an invite) to, finding any and every reason to blame the election defeat on Jeremy, the left, the left’s policies, and anything else they could find. What they didn’t blame it on was the lack of support from the right, or the attempts to undermine the election campaign. Was that Unity?
24th November 2019, speaking at a Reuters event in London, Tony Blair warned that both a Corbyn-led government and a Boris Johnson majority would pose an “unwise” “risk for the country” and backed for the first time the idea of tactical voting on a case-by-case basis. Choosing his words carefully to avoid getting expelled from Labour, Blair said he would personally vote for his party but said he could “understand” why people in his own local constituency in central London would back Liberal Democrat Chuka Umunna. Was that Unity?
Social Media, Lies, and Exaggeration
From the election of Jeremy there has been a determined attempt to undermine his leadership, but also to attack anyone who supports him.
The problem with social media is that it is very easy to smear someone, and anonymity means that there is very little consequence. Even when people use traceable identities there is an atmosphere of immunity, not being face to face gives an immunity that means that people feel that they can say whatever they want without any social consequence.
I am not suggesting that members of the right and centre of the party have the monopoly on abuse of other factions. Members on the left have been guilty of inappropriate behaviour towards others, and I would condemn that behaviour by any member. It should be remembered though that much of the abuse attributed to members (on left and right) has actually been carried out by those outside the party. Discussion of policy, politics, and direction, within the party is acceptable and should be encouraged. Abuse of any elements or members of the party is not acceptable.
Supporters of Jeremy, including myself, have been attacked with a rich variety of insults by the right. We have been called Corbynistas, Corbyn cultists, Stalinists, Marxists, Trotskyist, Communists, Leftists, often from anonymous accounts, but also from attributable accounts. Was that Unity?
Social media also provides the perfect arena where the “lie will gallop halfway round the world before the truth has time to pull its breeches on”. Anyone can put a lie out, or even a suggestion of a half-truth and it is greedily consumed by the multitude that want it to be true. Of course this is not restricted to any one part of the political spectrum but it has been used to great effect on occasion.
During the second leadership election it was alleged that Angela Eagle’s office had a brick thrown through the window and this was, of course, attributed to pro-Corbyn supporters (including by Angela herself). Later investigation showed that in fact although a brick had apparently been thrown it was a communal stairwell and not her office, and that the office is in an area known for vandalism and anti-social behaviour. Was that Unity?
There have been instances where sitting MPs claim to have been victimised by Corbyn supporters because of their politics or religion, whereas the reality is that they are simply being held to account for not being good constituency MPs. In one instance an MP claimed that they had to have police protection to attend conference because of intimidation by Corbyn supporters, when they were seen moving happily around conference with none of the claimed protection. Was that Unity?
There have been many other instances where claims have been made of intimidation at meetings, leading to suspensions, but where the actions have subsequently been found to have been exaggerated. Was that Unity?
Then we come to the smears directed at Jeremy. Direct attacks on Jeremy have been in the form of smears about things he might have done (although never substantiated). Attacks on supporters have included the same attacks as on Jeremy (although even more ludicrous when they accuse Jewish Labour members of antisemitism). Was that Unity?
The smears include many unsubstantiated allegations, including involvement in middle East terrorism, Communist spying, and talking to the IRA (negotiations were actually going on between the UK government and the IRA at the time). Although many of these allegations were started by the MSM many were amplified and broadcast by the right. Was that Unity?
Some of the right are persistent in their attacks on the left — for a good examples search Twitter for “hard left (from:lukeakehurst)”. As an example in 2018 Luke Akehurst (NEC member) tweeted: “Time the Hard Left were defeated so we can have a united and electable Labour Party focused on beating the Tories. The defeat of the Hard Left within Labour is a precondition of the defeat of the Tories. Fighting them is therefore part of fighting the Tories.” Was that Unity?
The 2019 General Election
The Labour Party addressed the 2019 election in the same way it addressed the 2017 election — activists working hard for candidates that had been chosen by regional party officials in some (possibly many) cases against the wishes of the CLP, (allegedly) campaign finances being directed to safe seats held by the ‘chosen ones’, MPs (who presumably saw their seats as safe) giving weak interviews with thinly veiled criticism of the leadership, etc., etc., etc. Was that Unity
Labour lost the election badly, but how much of that should be directed at those that gave less than 100% we will never know.
The 2020 Leadership Election and onwards
Following the defeat at the 2019 General Election Jeremy announced that he would be stepping down as leader and the campaigns for leader and deputy began.
The main access to candidates’ views was through the hustings and this was the best vehicle for the candidates to present their credentials to the membership, although I suspect only a few actually watched them.
The crucial statements by Keir Starmer during the campaign process were that he would Unify the Party, that he would maintain the radical policies in the party manifesto, and when questioned about donors that he was committed to transparency.
Even as he committed to Unity he was appointing Matt Pound (who, it is alleged, was recruited by Labour Progress to attack Jeremy Corbyn on social media — search for “Jeremy” or “Hard Left” on @iMattPound) to his team. Was that Unity?
Also during the campaign KS was asked at the hustings about his donors and he made a big thing about transparency although, unlike the other candidates, he used every loophole to ensure that his donors were hidden until after the vote was closed (especially as at least one of his donors turned out to be rather controversial). Was that Unity?
Once elected he appointed his shadow cabinet and, having committed to positions for his rivals, gave Lisa Nandy shadow Foreign Secretary and Rebecca Long-Bailey Education (probably the least he could give without getting two fingers). Was that Unity?
Keir’s shadow cabinet did include some left wing members, although significantly no major Corbyn supporters, apart from RLB that he could not avoid. Was that Unity?
The first phase of Starmer’s leadership could hardly be described as anti-left, but it could hardly be described as anti-government (or Opposition, as it should be normally described). The best description seemed to be ‘appeasement’ with Starmer regularly vocally supporting the government.
Starmer’s appearances at Parliamentary Question Time could certainly be described as forensic but did they hit the mark? In general they were received with a chorus of phluph, phluph, phluph, followed by bugger all action. The Tories have to be dragged kicking and screaming into any sort of action, Starmer’s cooperation has just facilitated their incompetence. But at the same time the centrists have not missed any opportunity to attack the left. Was that Unity?
Then in June 2020 Rebecca Long-Bailey retweeted an article by Maxine Peake that linked policing techniques used in Israel with the killing of George Floyd in America. Despite, and during, discussions regarding public clarification between RLB and the Party, Keir Starmer sacked her claiming that “the article contained anti-Semitic conspiracy theories”, although it was almost certainly a simple opportunity to remove a left winger from his cabinet. Given that a simple search of the internet shows that there was evidence that the statements were justified, and given that subsequent anti-Israel statements by shadow cabinet members were ignored Was that Unity?
Then we come to the ‘Spycops Bill’ where Keir Starmer imposed a three-line whip to abstain, and was either surprised (or more likely delighted) when a number of left wing shadow cabinet members were sacked or resigned. Given his ‘forensic’ ability (and comments by shadow cabinet members) that he couldn’t see what was going to happen it seems unlikely that this was not going to result in the removal of more left wing shadow cabinet members. Was that Unity?
Then we come to the EHRC report… The only investigation ever carried out into a political party (and look where it came from, and compare it to the EHRC response to anti-almost anything in other parties) resulted in a report that criticised the Labour Party over investigations into complaints of anti-Semitism. Without going into the details of the report (or those that carried it out, and the ramifications from it) Jeremy Corby made a statement that resulted in his suspension from the party. His suspension was on grounds specifically excluded in the EHRC report, and his suspension was lifted by the party after a review by an NEC panel, but then Keir Starmer withdrew the whip stating “Jeremy Corbyn’s actions in response to the EHRC report undermined and set back our work in restoring trust and confidence in the Labour party’s ability to tackle antisemitism”. Given that, similarly to RLB’s situation, Corbyn was in negotiation with the party to resolve the problem, and given that Jeremy is the most prominent figure of the left… Was that Unity?
I ask again… WAS THAT UNITY?????
After the ‘Corbyn Moment’
As the Labour Party left tried to come terms with the suspension of Jeremy it became clear that the statement “to the victor go the spoils" was not just a saying and more a description of the future of the Labour Party.
David Evans
And then we come to the ‘rule’ of David Evans’…
Following the NEC elections the right of the party gained ascendency and appointed David Evans as General Secretary by Keir Starmer (but not confirmed by Conference, because there is no Conference). Evans served as Labour’s assistant general secretary under Tony Blair and was seen as a boost for Keir Starmer. According to the BBC “One NEC source from the Labour left warned the leadership that “members won’t forgive them if they allow a hard-right general secretary to wage factional warfare” against them.” Read on for the party’s response to that… Was that Unity?
Guess what happens… after the debacle of the withdrawal of the whip from Jeremy Corbyn Evans starts throwing his weight around (undoubtedly in conjunction with Keir — anyone that thinks otherwise is currently in orbit around planet Zorg) and a series of Diktats start to appear restricting discussion of Jeremy’s suspension and gradually expanding into discussion of anything to do with the major issues affecting the Labour Party. Was that Unity?
Following this officers of CLPs start to be suspended for (presumably) breaching the Diktats issued by an unelected (and un-confirmed) officer of the party. Was that Unity?
There is also some suggestion that members of Labour to Win were asked to monitor the actions of officers in order to report them for suspension — if that is true Was that Unity?
(Stop Press: it is rumoured that the officers have been reinstated (two have been confirmed to have been reinstated) just before legal action against the party started, but with a caveat that the party thinks they have broken party rules, that this will be put on their records, and will be taken into account if they step out of line in the future — Is that Unity?)
So Where Are We Now?
We have a party that should be representing the membership, but is controlling and supressing the discussion and views of the membership. Is that Unity?
We have a party where CLP’s discussions are controlled by Diktat from the appointed, but not confirmed, General Secretary. Is that Unity?
We have a party where CLP officers can be suspended because of motions proposed by members. Is that Unity?
We have a party where CLP officers have to refer motions (in order to protect themselves), raised by bona fide members, to Region to ensure that the motions aren’t offending current party niceties. Is that Unity?
We have a party that, in the name of protecting the ‘safe space’ of some (which I absolutely support) has severely restricted the ‘safe space’ of others to talk (with respect and understanding) about various aspects of modern society. Is that Unity?
(My) Conclusion
“Victori spolia” (To the victor the spoils) is the maxim adopted by the right and centre of the party.
In 2015 the Party ‘establishment’ (including the right and centre of the party) took its eye off the ball and, aided and abetted by the membership, a true socialist snuck into the role of Leader of the Labour Party.
The establishment quickly recognised its mistake and rallied to undermine, in every way it could, the elected leader of the Labour Party — Jeremy Corbyn. Was that Unity?
Recognising that words and attacks alone were not enough, the establishment actively took steps to ensure that the Party would be unelectable under a socialist Leader. Was that Unity?
Finally the establishment succeeded and, having disposed of the interloper, it set about ensuring that the left could never again take control of the party. Their approach was not just to pull up the drawbridge but to brick up the gateway. Was that Unity?
They started to attack anything that the left membership would support in the hope that left supporting members would leave, stripping out left leaning members of the cabinet, and eventually removing the whip from the icon of the left. Was that Unity?
When there were murmurings against the action being taken they introduced the Evans Diktats and suspended some more. Was that Unity?
When they were forced to take them back they added weasel words to threaten against future support for the left. Was that Unity?
The establishment has taken back control and is determined that, whatever is printed on the back of our membership cards, the Labour Party will never again be Democratic or Socialist.
IS THAT UNITY?
Post Script
I said at the beginning of this piece, recently ‘Labour to Win’ has started talking about unity within the party, and even has a petition calling for unity. It should be remembered that Labour to Win originates from Progress and Labour First that have spent the last five years attacking the Leader and leadership of the Party at every opportunity Was that Unity?
The proposals are very clever in that in calling for unity it is impossible to argue against it without appearing to be working against unity in the Labour Party.
However the petition (and strangely motions with almost identical wording are being proposed at CLP meetings) calls for various actions including:
* To offer training for key branch and CLP officers so that they can have the skills and knowledge to manage meetings to make them inclusive and welcoming.
* To provide information on members’ responsibilities for civil and productive meetings when they join the party.
* To take action where a CLP’s internal culture is unwelcoming and uncivil.
* To take disciplinary action when individuals behave in an uncomradely manner.”
The problem here is who defines the criteria for training (and who needs it), and who will adjudicate on disputes — it is clear from the recent suspensions that an independent and unbiased mechanism does not currently exist within the Labour party.
It would appear that this petition is not about Unity but about Compliance and Control. Is that Unity?
Image credits:
Party Unity: AFP via Getty Images
Labour made mistakes: The Independant and Getty Images
Labour deeply divided: The Scotsman and PA Images
Jess Phillips willing: The Telegraph and Rex Features
Tom Watson: Bob Miller
Keir Starmer Resignation: Labour Heartlands
Jeremy is up and down: Quote Angela Eagle & meme
Jeremy in Reading: Bob Miller
Peter Mandelson: The Daily Mail
Polling Station: Bob Miller
Labour Leadership Hustings: Daily Express & Getty Images
Taking the knee: ?
© Bob Miller 2021
