At the Brockley selection, which selected by about ⅔ majorities candidates supporting the incumbency, the questions were as about transgender rights, Brockley campaigning & why it’s important to live in the wards, who they voted for in the Leadership, and issues important to Brockley.

The transgender debate is important to some member’s of Brockley ward, and asking about the leadership votes is a short cut to understanding one’s political centre of gravity. This latter question was challenged as questions prohibited in employment interviews are also prohibited in Labour’s selections. The Chair, rightly ruled it in order; its the one of the two central political questions in the Labour Party, although many wish it weren’t because of their past actions.

The other two questions relate to Brockley campaigning and why it’s important to live in the ward, and what are the important Brockley issues? Many asked why the second of these questions was not declared a duplicate.

To me this shows the inward looking nature of many of Brockley Labour, there’s nothing really special about Brockley, its problems are the same as everyone else’s  Housing, Education, Diversity & cuts in services (which is caused by the Tory central government.), issues. I am disappointed that no-one has asked about welcoming refugees and Lewisham Council’s participation in immigration raids and data sharing. …


A proposed rule change on the CLP capitation fee.

Fair capitations for CLPs

Chapter 2 Clause III Sub Clause 6

Insert between “member” and “and”, “a minimum payment of 50% of the standard rate for each standard rate paying member and 100% of the standard rate for each elected representative rate paying member” …


This is getting embarrassing! I have generally held off using change.org petitions to influence the Labour Party but … needs must.

Re-run the local elections 2018 candidate selection across the Labour Party London Region

Working Title

Today, I wrote to Labour List and proposed to write an article for them.

I’ll take help on the title but currently working with “Privacy Law, canvassing and registered supporters”

Next year, 28th May, the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation comes into force. Among other things it will prohibit the storage and processing of canvass returns without freely given, informed and explicit consent. We will have to prove that consent has been obtained and be able to tell electors everything we know about them.

The simplest answer to these new compliance requirements is to extend the registered supporter arrangement, make it an ongoing contract so that the agreement can include privacy clauses. The ambition would be to extend the scheme to high proportions of our voter base. For this purpose, the fee would need to be low, nearer £3 than £25.


I should add that without some form of reform, the retention of the Registered Supporters data in the membership system is in my mind questionably legal, as it breaks the storage limitation principle. When compliance ruled that Registered Supporters could not be invited to member’s meetings, they made the sole purpose of holding the data the leadership election. This purpose was confirmed when the NEC required re-registration of the registered supporters at £25 in 2016; the consequence of such a decision to my mind negated the purpose of the original registrations. …


I went to Southwark Momentum meeting yesterday and discovered that Joanna Baxter, a past member candidate for the NEC while Secretary of Camberwell and Peckham established local rules that limit/establish the number of branch delegates to 15.

The problem with limiting the number of Branch delegates is that as the membership grows it cannot be properly represented vs. the privileged membership of the socialist societies, co-ops and trade unions, no doubt including the steel workers. In my CLP, the majority of branches have over 20 delegates.

When I get sometime back in my life I think I shall complain about this; it’s clearly a stichup and distorts the democracy of every meeting in which C&P CLP attend and send GC elected delegates. …



At my last Union branch meeting, we heard from Gemma Short of the right to strike campaign. As one part of her presentation she mentioned that one of the Unions’ response to the recent Trade Union laws is to demand that they can run strike ballots (and the mandatory political levy and elections) using e-voting technology. I have been thinking about this for a while and its fans need to take stock; there’s some inconvenient truths. …