There is now very little time left to press for accountability for cheating the voters in 2017 by plotting to limit the seat gains that would correspond to the surge in popularity that suddenly happened, much to the shock of the elite and the establishment.

We have until Monday to raise enough money to take last summer's Court of Appeal red light to the ECHR.

Update on Justice for Labour Party Members for Victory in General Election 2017

ECHR applications have to be timely. The opportunity is about to be missed. There is one week to go.

"Labour was not elected on a wave of popularity. The first-past-the-post vote system masked Labour’s low vote share, which was just 34%." wrote @johnmcdonnellMP this week.

But there was a wave of popularity (40% share) in 2017. Labour did topple Tory majority government. Voters did want Labour in power, even more than in 2024, but they were thwarted by Labour's unpopular right wing.

This is a chance to see that evidence is examined of how this was done and those responsible are held to account. Witnesses have come forward stating it was done by diverting activists and resources from each of a hundred marginal seats to neighbouring safe seats under covert central coordination.

Seat gains (a net 30) thus understated popularity, which still went on rising after election day, to nearly 50%.

Expose the relentlessly right-wing faction that rid Britain of democracy starting in 2017. Secretly, centrally controlled stooges in each of 100 seats Labour could have won (and did win 36) hour-by-hour, day-by-day sent door-knockers to a safe seat nearby.

Again ruthlessly exploiting the quirks of the first-past-the-post voting system but this time in reverse fashion, in 2024 authoritarian Labour secured 411 of the 650 seats in the House of Commons on the back of only 33.7% of the votes just to pursue Tory policy and lose power after one term**.

In 2017 the party truly offered Labour policy but its factionally-controlled machine tried to lose the contest. It secured only 267 of the 650 seats despite a remarkable 40% of the votes. In 2024 the same faction faked a Labour offer and won by barring campaigning in safe seats (letting in Farage and others).

Britain was deprived of democracy in both cases, as well as in 2019 when Labour neutered itself by offering to negate the referendum of 2016. To restore democracy and the people's will for Labour not Tory policy it is necessary to expose how it began.

** https://leftfootforward.org/2024/12/labours-lurch-to-the-right-could-risk-keir-starmer-being-a-one-term-prime-minister/

In recent days some potential donors have asked for more time to facilitate internal decision-making.

It is notable that wealth taxes and the nationalisation of water are popular, as indeed they have been since 2017.

Britain is to the left of Labour following the internal right wing coup that began by keeping Labour out of power in 2017.

Please help try to get this case in front of the ECHR.

https://labourlist.org/2024/12/news-left-wing-policies-labour-greater-popularity/  

“Labour’s increase in vote share was largely a result of the party stockpiling support in seats it already held” wrote Benjamin Kentish, accurately, in the Independent published on 14 July 2017. Many on limited information sensed that this was by design. A few party officials and right wing Labour politicians and, no doubt, dark figures outside of Labour, knew for a fact it was so, ruthlessly so. Only in this way could Britain’s elite be sure to avoid a left wing government. 

The same clique, again ruthlessly, did the exact opposite in 2024. Far fewer votes (33% of a lower turnout, compared to 40%) were spread thinly across the country, to pile up seats nevertheless, rather than votes. It appeared to be a landslide but in fact it was a slump in popular support compared to 2017.

It is not a donation to Labour or to Labour members. Most of the suppliers of evidence, including most of the candidates who should have won in 2017, are no longer members.

It's about getting a declaration from the ECHR that the matter should either have gone to trial or have been properly dealt with by a strengthened Forde enquiry whose swingeing recommendations (as they would have been) had been thoroughly implemented.

This will put pressure on the (Labour ) government to refer it back to the court, and on the Labour Party to do better than the hamstrung, largely ignored, Forde could.