I attended the London Labour Conference over the weekend, which was held online. I was lucky to be able to speak on CV19, public health and NPIs. This blog article reports on the notes of the speech, and the words of the motion.
I wrote a piece on the Labour’s new proscription policy which was published on Labour Hub. It points to Pastor Niermoller’s prayer as do I in this article. …
After the proscriptions decision by Labour’s NEC, I had a quick look at the Report of the Charkrabarti Inquiry again, as she was very firm on natural justice.
Another matter which has been brought to my attention is the frequency of resort to the power of interim suspension in cases where an allegation that a member has acted in breach of the rules is before the General Secretary and/or his staff. Indeed, an early lesson that any new General Counsel might offer his/her colleagues is on the application of the vital legal principles of due process (or natural justice) and proportionality.
Shami Chakrabarti (Page 18)
She considered conforming to the principles of natural justice so important that she proposed to write conforming to them into the rules. Another shame that this was not implemented. …
So Kier’s planning that Labour proscribe four organisations allowing the Party Bureaucracy to auto-exclude its supporters. Two of the organisations (LIEN, Resist) are basically outside anyway, one (LAW) is practically defunct which leaves Socialist Appeal, who are irrelevant to the left right struggle in the Party. I have written extensively about the failure of these rules to conform to the rules of natural justice and that I have friends who have been unjustly and arbitrarily auto-excluded. Rule 4.I.2.B is contrary to the ECHR’s right to a fair trial.
The first point to make is that this is a defined collective offence. No personal culpability of anti-party activities is to be assessed. Secondly, we are in stupid position where people can self-id as BAME, women and disabled, but not as socialists, although as I discovered recently, the word socialism does not appear in the rule book. Thirdly, they won’t stop here, Neil Coyle argued that Jewish Voice for Labour should be next but the real target is to cow Momentum.
Finally, it’s a piece of theatre, designed to create the momentum that Blair created by fighting the Left. The Miitant were expelled 40 years ago and Clause IV amended in 1996, (25 years ago). Politics have changed. History repeats itself, the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce. The end game of this strategy is obvious to see, a Labour Party run by people without vision and without hope (as it was in 2010), whose only sense of journey is to attack their core support; today, that is the young city dweller who is/was a Remainer.
I quote Phil BC, from his blog, who says,
Anyone with a leftwing, socialist bone in their body should stand against this petty purge. And remind ourselves again that we’re not dealing with just another Tory-lite Labour leader but an existential threat. Starmer is more likely to lead the party into complete collapse
Here’s a petition to oppose the purge, a statement from Unite & Momentum and a statement issued by left members of the NEC. …
During the week, Judge Butcher delivered a disappointing ruling in Neslen & Others vs Evans. Diana Neslen and her co-plaintiffs were suing the Labour Party over their treatment under the disciplinary code. This is reviewed at the Mirror, Morning Star by Ammar Kamzi, who has also posted a blog article, , and presented in judgement form at Bailli.
Most disappointing is the idea that the accused do not need to know the charge against them, merely the gist and that the Labour Party’s investigation policy can be secret. I have argued before that the absence of a policy to guide investigators was just deplorable, but the Judge seems to think it’s OK. Apart from being against the Party’s values, this would all seem to be in contradiction of ECHR Article 6.
I might read the judgement and comment further. I’d be interested to know if C2.II.7, a member’s right to fair treatment was deployed.
I feel disappointed that I took my foot of the accelerator over the need to incorporate the ECHR into Labour’s Rules.
Some of us who had more hope in judicial review may need to think our strategies. …
Labour holds Batley & Spen. Was it good luck, or did something important and positive happen? I draw some conclusions, and point at other's comments. Most importantly, candidates count, although we are still trapped between running a good MP, or running a good campaigner; people that can do both are rare. I conclude with the view that Labour's election machine needs to be improved if only its messaging strategy.
A number of CLPs are holding their AGMs and I have seen the following question asked, if it’s possible/permitted for one person to hold two positions. The rules are at best unclear but I have come to the conclusion that this should not be allowed.
The Chesham and Amersham by-election. What’s the headline? Tory vote collapses, or Labour loses deposit. A bit of good news and bad news. I doubt that Labour’s leadership will be think that doing better than they did in the Richmond Park by-election is a winning line, nor that we weren’t really trying.
This may be a dramatic reinforcement of what was hinted at on May 6th, that traditional Tory voters in the South of the country are sick of Johnson’s UKIP retread party. It’s a shame that they didn’t wake up in time to save Dominic Greive’s seat and the 150,000 dead from CVB19; it’s not a national trend as Ben Houchon’s strong mandate in Teeside shows. Houchan’s victory also undermines the argument that the red wall is collapsing because Labour are the establishment as do the victories in Preston and Manchester.
Chesham & Amerhsam was a remain seat, 55% – 45%.
Here’s a chart, showing among other things, Labour’s 2017 vote and its historic second place.
There have been some famous by-election upsets in the past, although few with a lasting impact. I wonder if this is any different today. The politics is, and voter loyalty is much weaker than it was fifty years ago. …
I was asked on a Facebook Group, if it was normal for Constituency Labour Party affiliates to change their delegate nominees after a Labour Party branch AGM in order to install people that had lost in the election at their branches. I replied, possibly at length, and have decided to reproduce what I said here. I wrote,
Is it normal? Dunno, but in my view it’s indicative of cheating and this isn’t the first time I have heard of this happening. If the certification of the delegates is not signed by the affiliating entity’s secretary, I would doubt that the unit has met or voted to send delegates. The key here, in generating my suspicion is the timing, the affiliate will only have days, and in the other case I have seen, the fact that the individuals named were not active or retired steel workers.
The rules on what may affiliate are named in C7.IV. Trade Union regional committees may not affiliate. New affiliates must be accepted more than 60 days before the AGM. Only socialist society branches may affiliate.
The rules require that all affiliates name the unit affiliating. It would seem normal to expect that the unit’s secretary would be named so that the CLP can fulfil its communication responsibilities, but it is not, most Unions do not inform the CLP of the affiliating branch’s secretary. I have at times sought to disaffiliate those affiliates that will not tell us who their secretary is and whose notification was not signed by the unit secretaries. I did not succeed. The affiliation should be on letterheaded paper (or digital equivalent) and certifiably dated.
With respect to socialist societies, only local branches may affiliate. Ask for the branch name, the branch secretary and the date of the meeting at which the decisions were taken. I have helped deregister delegates who were nominated other than by local branches and rejected a soc. soc. affiliation on these grounds. (In fact, I joined two of the socialist societies to ensure they kept to the rules. I approve of those organisations, it wasn’t parasitic entryism. In fact, I am still a member of the LME.)
I recommend that a CLP adopts the policy that any money sent to the party by affiliates without cross referencing a delegate nomination is treated as a donation. i.e. refuse to recognise affiliations without delegate nominations.
However trying this with a Union will probably bring the attention of Regional Office who may seek to ‘persuade’ you that what you’re doing is against the rules and that you or your party will be suspended. Ask for any instructions in writing.
I have previously expressed similar views on this blog in articles entitled, Phantoms, Secretaries and Localism. …
My take on May 6th's super Thursday. I waited to talk about this as it’s a story that unrolled over three days. Thursday night was dominated by Labour’s loss of Hartlepool and Durham County Council and rumours of an upset in London as the Tory GLA seats were declared and Labour held Harrow & Brent underperformed in delivering votes to Sadiq Kahn. Over Friday, the picture became clearer, there was a great victory in Wales, we took the West of England and Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Mayor positions and held councils such as Preston, although we lost the West Midlands Metropolitan Mayor (again). There were some great victories in Oxfordshire and one notable defeat in Oxford City. Labour won the elections in Liverpool and in the evening, it became clear that Sadiq Kahn would win in London, with the result being declared just before midnight. Phil Burton Cartledge comments on the lessons to be learned on strategy. I say, at the centre of the lessons to be learned is how to put together a coalition that can win. This is a question beyond that of geography. Phil BC's writings are full of analysis about the changing nature of work, the ageing and the political criticality of outright home ownership, the alienation of final salary pension recipients from the youth and even their children and the historic loyalty of Britain’s black and asian communities and these issues’ impact on British politics. He also argues that age is the primary bifurcation of politics today as Thatcher’s voters fulfil their home-owning dream and either look to survive and/or pull the ladder up behind them. He also argues that capital needs social liberalism as immaterial work becomes dominant in our economy. For more, and the links, 'Read More' ...