Time in the Garden

My mind turns to Gardening Leave, not because I have any outstanding disputes with any of my ex-employers but because there seems to be a lack of clarity as to when and why one might use it if one was an employer.

If someone is on Gardening Leave they remain an employee and may not work for anyone else, although this also depends on the terms of the employment contract. In a world of zero hours contracts, this maybe a part of the law that will be re-examined.

For full time workers though, more and more companies are placing terms in their contracts that if one should, say, invent a new cheese in one’s back garden, then the company claims the exploitation rights. All inventions belong to your employer. It’s unclear if another month, or three months would make much difference though, but protecting the company’s intellectual property remains a motive for delaying people leaving as does getting them off site and off the IT systems.

Another key advantage is that the employee cannot work for a competitor, again, employers often via employment contracts try and restrain people’s ability to compete with them on quitting, but this is fraught with legal risk; keeping them on the books is legally much safer. Many sales staff may find themselves constrained in this way and the strengthened data protection laws will make it harder for them to take their address books with them.

A specific and unusual example of this is where staff of regulatory, political policy or law enforcement organisations leave their job to work for regulated entities. In fact, the public sector has constraints on this, but they have been weakened in time over the decades. The public sector employment contracts nearly all have clauses similar to private sector non-compete clauses but restraining public servants from working with organisations that they had regulatory or procurement relationships with. Despite this many lobbying organisations employ ex-politicians, civil servants and police. (In some ways, the movement in the other direction is more corrupt.)

The final example is where someone has financial or judicially regulated authority within the organisation. It’s usually inappropriate to leave such senior staff in place once they have resigned, and certainly of there are question marks on their remaining commitment. This of course is compounded where a compromise agreement has been signed to avoid the need to undertake disciplinary or redundancy processes. Management need to ensure that they are acting in the interests of the organisation’s stakeholders and protect themselves against a class action.

That’s where the Labour Party finds itself. A huge swath of its senior staff have put in their notice, they remain able to exercise their authority and for some reason are being permitted to work their notice, in some cases it would seem an extended notice.

It should be noted that for the ex-employee, if someone with a full time job, one or three months gardening leave can be a welcome gift. …

Lewisham Momentum has been split

All Momentum groups and activists should be very concerned.

This was distributed today to a meeting of Momentum activists.

Summary

On 23 April, a group trying to remove the entire Lewisham Momentum committee, on the basis of a secretive campaign of lies and slander, led a walkout from the group’s AGM and held a bizarre pseudo-meeting, with no democratic standards, in the front bar of a pub. This meeting has nonetheless been recognised by the Momentum office. This should be a cause of serious alarm for anyone concerned about democracy and members’ rights in Momentum, and its political direction.

What happened in Lewisham?

On 23 April, so many people turned up to the Lewisham Momentum AGM that the venue organisers claimed it was not possible for more to enter safely. In addition to the hundred-plus inside, another 30 or 40 could not get in. There was a fierce argument about what to do, with the committee arguing to reschedule to a new date. Some of those who wanted to continue claimed to have found another venue, the large back room of the nearby Amersham Arms pub. By this time it was about 8.15pm. There was a vote, held in conditions of chaos – the figures are not clear, and many people did not vote, but it looked most of those who did voted to move to the “new venue”.

“New venue” because when those who left got to the Amersham Arms, about 8.30pm, they found that the back room, which the AGM had been told was available, had a gig going on it! A “meeting” was held in the front bar of the pub (much smaller than the original venue), with no proper procedures and no registration checks, at which anyone present in the space could vote, whether they were random pub-goers or had just come in off the street. A committee was “elected”, every position unopposed, by a single vote.

The organisers of the Amersham meeting claim about 75 at this meeting; others who were present and asked to count carefully and honestly counted significantly less (see statements linked below). Meanwhile about 60 remained at the original venue, and this number grew as people returned from the Amersham.

Why did it happen?

By themselves these facts seem bizarre and inexplicable. What was going on?

In the weeks running up to the AGM it gradually emerged that a secret slate was being put together to remove the entire existing committee. This despite the fact that it had already been agreed, before any of this controversy was even guessed at, to expand the size of the committee from about ten to about twenty to involve more people.

The driving force of this slate was people who have never had any involvement in Lewisham Momentum. At its core were people grouped around ‘Red London’, a Facebook page which turns out Stalinist memes and has engaged in numerous online (and not just online) campaigns of bullying and harassment. These people moved to Lewisham very recently – in fact there is strong circumstantial evidence that some of them do not live in Lewisham at all. They linked up with people long angry at Lewisham Momentum because in late 2016 they raised the issue of Jackie Walker’s removal as Vice Chair of Momentum’s Steering Committee but heavily lost the vote on this. That argument resulted in the most fractious meeting the group had ever had until the 23 April AGM, and the disappearance of a number of people who only reappeared on 23 April. The purgers also seemed to have mobilised people on the basis of social networks – fair enough and not necessarily bad, except that it was done for the purpose of deranged factionalism.

All this was done secretively, and they refused to sit down and talk about possible ways of compromising and working together, despite repeated offers to do so. Some of what they were telling people nonetheless emerged – and more has emerged since the AGM. It was a tissue of all kinds of lies, from the shocking – in particular accusations of support for child abuse, a mainstay of ‘Red London’ with which they are now trying to infect sections of the Lewisham left – to the absurd – e.g. claiming Lewisham Momentum has not supported a campaign against academisation, at Childeric primary school, which our comrades have in fact been central to but the accusers have had no involvement in!

No doubt many well-intention people were convinced, at least temporarily, by this campaign of slander or elements of it.

At the sharp end of the attack were comrades who are members of Workers’ Liberty, but the campaign targeted the entire committee and anyone who stood opposed to the Stalinist-led purge drive. Both sides mobilised hard – hence the big turnout for the AGM.

The role of national Momentum: be alarmed

Most of the leadership of Lewisham Momentum are pretty cynical about the national Momentum office and leadership, but we were genuinely a bit surprised by the decision of a Momentum staff member to recognise the Amersham Arms group as “Lewisham Momentum”.

One reason the AGM was so slow to get going is that Momentum staff members insisted on double-checking everyone’s registration. Yet for the Amersham meeting all and any standards went out of the window, with no checks and anyone able to come and vote – this was apparently no problem.

The Momentum leadership has long regarded Lewisham Momentum as an irritating left-wing, critical thorn in its side. That is why, in the conditions of tight top-down control and witch-hunting of left-wing critics that have got worse since 2016, the ‘Red London’ people chose to target Lewisham. It is not just a matter of whether you agree with Lewisham’s political stance. It is a matter of whether Momentum’s bureaucracy can get away with supporting political thugs to attack and beat down anyone they regard as dissident.

Momentum groups should protest to the NCG and back our call for a rescheduled, democratic AGM.

More facts and background

Our open letter to the split group calling for reunification and meanwhile united campaigning (so far no reply – no reply also to a specific email calling for cooperation on a local strike) See davelevy.info/lewisham-momentum and davelevy.info/stitched/ which includes two videos taken at the Amersham Arms and eyewitness reports of the meeting.

Here is an article on the culture of lies and slander engendered by ‘Red London’ published on the AWL web site: bit.ly/2kGD0Xw …

Some new rules for Labour

The CLPD have some recommended rule changes, they are published on their web site and in this document.

They include allowing the membership a say in the candidates for the Leader and ensuring either the Leader or Deputy is female, reform of the trigger ballot process, democratising the Local Campaign Forums, election of the CLP NCC reps by OMOV, changes to the way in which rule changes are dealt with (2), a democratic Young Labour, introducing proportionality in the length of disciplinary penalties, establishing Conference standing orders, establishing an Ombudsman, a Charter of Member Rights, a Code of Ethics for members, representatives and staff, amendments to motions at Conference, organising disabled members and a conference for disabled members.

ooOOOoo

The deadline has passed; I have inserted an excerpt delimiter, for what was said, use the “read more” button. …  …

Formal Complaint

How to complain to the Labour Party

Dear General Secretary

I witnessed the following actions.

<Describe the events which are in breach of the rules>

I believe this to be in breach of the following Laws, Rules, Procedural Guides and/or Code of Conduct*.

<List the Laws, rules or other policies that have been broken>

I am/am not* a member of the Labour Party. Please treat this as a complaint under Rule 6.I.1.

* List and or delete as appropriate

Double bonus if you can quote the European Convention on Human Rights …

Thoughts

When I felt the need to start shouting on Facebook, I needed a somewhere else to put my less well formed thoughts and diary-like notes. Firstly I experimented with ello, but I later transferred my ello to a wordpress blog site, ello.davelevy.info in July 2016, to make it easier to share and integrate. I moved these posts to this site in March 2018. I categorised my entries in that blog as “thoughts” and category thoughts remains in place. I occasionally still use it. I documented the ello blog as page on this site, and with a carousel entry on the home page.

I continued to use ello for sillyness and stuff and there is a link to it at the bottom of all pages, in the black panel.

Comments are now auto closed after 14 days, there is be a social login plugin to allow you to comment using your own social network logins.

Articles on the thoughts blog are more likely to be unfinished, often representing work in progress, or ideas with insufficient time invested.

Today, I transferred this content from a page to this post. …

Lewisham Momentum

I have not written up my view as to what happened at the Lewisham Momentum AGM, but Rebecca & Jon have written to the officers elected by those who left and went down the pub.

 

Dear comrades,

Following your departure from the Lewisham Momentum AGM and the holding of a meeting to set up a new group at the Amersham Arms on 23 April, we are continuing to advocate a rescheduled, democratic AGM and for it to elect a broad, pluralist, united committee.

The split into two rival groups is weakening the left, in terms of wasted energy, duplication of efforts and most of all the bad blood it has caused on the Lewisham left. We should try to get unity. There is no good reason the two sides cannot be part of a united Labour left/Momentum in Lewisham.

We want to ensure that a united Momentum continues to provide an open, democratic, regularly meeting forum in which members can put forward and where necessary vote on proposals and policy, and decide the direction of the organisation.

We also want to deal with the slanders against us and our activists that have been made on social media and elsewhere in the course of all this, and re-establish normal, comradely labour movement standards of debate.

Some of you may disagree with some of these points. You may have your own issues you want to raise. That is all the more reason to open a dialogue, sit down and discuss.

Moreover this split, while it lasts, should not prevent us from finding ways to work together in the movement and in struggles.

There are lots of things on which can and should cooperate, even as separate groups: the Lewisham East by election; support for the Lewisham Southwark College pay strike and other struggles; opposing Trump’s visit; building stronger left caucuses in the three CLPs…

We therefore invite you to send representatives to sit down with ours (three officers from each side, say) to discuss things. If we can find ways to discuss moving towards unification, that’s good; but we should start by discussing cooperation in the struggle and how we can work together to build the movement. We owe it to the left and labour movement in Lewisham and beyond.

In addition to the immediate need to strengthen struggles and campaigning, no doubt both sides have things to learn from each other. Discussion can also help to dissipate some of the hostility and factionalism generated on the Lewisham left over recent months.

Get in touch and let us know what you think. We are, naturally, happy to discuss the specifics of how to move forward on this.

* Rebecca Lawrence and Jon Johnson, for Lewisham for Corbyn (Momentum) *

 …

Belonging to Momentum

A personal piece of unfinished business from the CLPD National Committee. People’s Momentum’s membership rules,

Momentum’s Rules 5.1

Membership is open to anyone who either was a financial subscriber of Momentum on 10 January 2017, or
(i) Is 14 or over;
(ii) Is a member of the Labour Party and no other political party nor an organisation disallowed by the NCG;
(iii) Agrees to be bound by the rules of Momentum, including its code of ethics and equal opportunities policy; and
(iv) Is accepted for membership by the NCG.

The “is 14 or over” is a tautology as you can’t join the Labour Party until you’re 14. Interesting that they have adopted powers to proscribe organisations not necessarily proscribed by the Labour Party. Most interestingly, if a member before 10 Jan 2017, then you remain a member. …

Brexit and Labour’s 2017 manifesto

Some Lexiters claim that the EU treaties will inhibit a Labour Government if it tried to implement its 2017 manifesto. It is argued that the single market would inhibit industrial policy and the stability and growth pact would inhibit macro-economic policy. I don’t think this is so and have written up my notes on my wiki.

The single market does not inhibit an industrial policy, and the stability and growth pact has no enforcement mechanism for the UK. (Another opt-out which we will lose if we leave and seek to rejoin). 🤔 …