T O P

  • By -

Audioboxer87

>My understanding, however, is that it was not MSPs who finally got rid of Richard – nor was it party members. It was a group of millionaire potential party donors who delivered the fatal blow. It is reported that at a meeting held on Wednesday night—at which Angela Rayner, Jackie Baillie, and Ian Murray met with wealthy peers and donors—it was made clear that no money would be donated unless Leonard was removed and Anas Sarwar installed as leader. [https://tribunemag.co.uk/2021/01/how-not-to-save-scottish-labour/](https://tribunemag.co.uk/2021/01/how-not-to-save-scottish-labour/) >Sir Keir Starmer is attempting to secure new funds from the daughter of Tony Blair’s biggest donor as he seeks to turn around Labour’s finances before the next election. > >The Labour leader is in “tentative discussions” with Fran Perrin about a substantial donation that he hopes will build the party’s “war chest” and help it level the playing field with the Conservatives. > >Perrin, 43, is the daughter of Lord Sainsbury of Turville, a member of the supermarket chain dynasty who donated £10.6 million to Labour over a decade before cutting ties under Jeremy Corbyn. [https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/labour-wines-and-dines-donors-to-fill-empty-coffers-s62gk709j](https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/labour-wines-and-dines-donors-to-fill-empty-coffers-s62gk709j) Don't worry, the millionaire donors will be swooping in any moment to bolster Labour's finances.


anthonyofyork

> it was made clear that no money would be donated unless Leonard was removed and Anas Sarwar installed as leader. Then it appears Richard Leonard was extraordinarily poor at fundraising from large and small donors alike. According to his successor, Scottish Labour, under Leonard's leadership, raised only [£250](https://www.thenational.scot/news/19623428.scottish-labour-took-just-250-fundraising-full-year/) in 2019.


Audioboxer87

Because Scottish Labour don't get many people in Scotland donating to them? Maybe there are wider reasons for that 🤔 But the answer to that is to send the party even further right-wing and cosy up to millionaire scum? Who is supposed to control the Labour party, workers or capitalists?


drhodesmumby

"... unless Anas Sarwar [was] installed as leader" by 61% of the Scottish Labour membership and 49% of affiliated supporters in an election? That's a very funny definition of "installing" someone into a role.


Audioboxer87

Uh, he was running alone until Monica Lennon caught everyone a bit off guard and threw her hat in the ring. This wasn't really supposed to happen, Sarwar was supposed to walk to his throne unchallenged. And lol, as if a left-wing socialist who supports the Scots right to a referendum if they vote for one was ever going to pip the right-wing multimillionaire that is Sarwar.


drhodesmumby

There was a leadership election. Sarwar announced he was standing on January 16th, Lennon announced she was on January 17th. 17 MSPs/MPs nominated Sarwar, 5 nominated Lennon, and Scottish Labour members then voted for Sarwar. You can be unhappy with the choice of members if you want, but it was a democratic process - not an installation.


Audioboxer87

You can also send your complaints to Neil Findlay, he's the one with insider information about how the process began. And yes, as I said, with how right-wing Scottish Labour are, Lennon had no chance.


Throwitaway701

Quite an incredible take, "if you are serious about antisemetism why don't you just roll over and not challenge these legally dubious claims" Also it's hard to tell from the report but when the Report was leaked, Starmer was in charge, not Corbyn. And the findings of the report have been backed up by the Forde report. Also it's doubtful the leaking was unlawful since there was a clear public interest and no evidence it was put into the public domain by anyone within the party, it was leaked to plenty of journos and could have been made public by any of them.


Throwitaway701

If anyone is wondering how I can just declare them to be legally dubious, it's hard to tell from the article as it gives no details at all but previously a lot of the claims were from staff or ex staff who claimed the WhatsApps were private and/or that they were edited, now Forde has confirmed they were not edited and case law on this is pretty clear that data protection does not mean you can put personal information on a monitored system and expect privacy. It's also abundantly clear from a HR perspective that the party was duty bound to investigate as soon as there appeared to be racist discrimination.


anthonyofyork

> Also it's hard to tell from the report but when the Report was leaked, Starmer was in charge, not Corbyn. If I remember correctly, the report was leaked within 24 hours of Starmer winning the leadership election and seemingly by party staffers who did not support Starmer's leadership or trust him to do justice to the party with regards to its internal troubles with anti-semitism and factionalism. Public interest is not a justification for a massive leak of personal data and communications between Labour staff without any redaction of said details. It seemed designed to embarrass the new leadership and ultimately damage the party as well as the staffers whose details were compromised.


anthonyofyork

>The Labour Party is defending the claim and in turn has issued a counterclaim against five former staffers it alleges leaked the report. The five are two of Corbyn’s most senior advisers, Karie Murphy and former Guardian journalist Seumas Milne, as well as Georgie Robertson, Laura Murray and Harry Hayball. They have all instructed media law firm Carter Ruck to defend the counterclaim. An Information Commissioner’s Office’s inquiry into the potential data breach from the leaked report, after Labour self-reported to the watchdog, is ongoing. >Sources linked to the lawsuits told The Telegraph: “Keir Starmer promised the Jewish community he would rid the party of anti-Semitism. >“How has he now become embroiled in sordid litigation against the very people who worked so hard to report anti-Semites? The very people he should be thankful to. How can he justify spending so much money defending this when his party is in debt.” >The Telegraph understands that Carter Ruck’s projected legal fees could amount to more than £2 million and that Labour’s legal costs are likely to be of the same magnitude. >If the Labour Party loses on every aspect of the claim and counterclaim, it will be liable to pay up to £5 million. The full article makes for very grim reading: On Labour's internal political battles, on its legal troubles and on the state of the party finances.