On Investigatory Powers, yet again

Time for another go on getting some decent policy against the surveillance state and against privatised investigatory powers. Here’s my first draft.

Investigatory Powers to be subject to Human Rights Law

Conference notes that the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 legalised the UK intelligence services to collect telecommunication usage data on all UK residents, now ruled as contrary to human rights law.

Conference notes the Immigration Act 2014 and Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015 requires numerous private & public sector organisations to collect personal data about their customers, users or charges.

Conference notes that all immigration enforcement data has been exempted from the Data Protection Act 2018.

Conference notes that the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015 places surveillance duties on specified authorities including educational & healthcare institutions.

Conference notes the complete absence from the NPF report 2018 on the surveillance society and the illegal investigatory powers regime introduced by the Tories in 2016.

Conference believes that freedom of expression & thought and the right to privacy are universal human rights and the current surveillance and investigatory powers regime is in breach of these rights.

Conference resolves that a Labour Government will ensure that private and public surveillance technologies and systems will conform to laws that meet the requirements of the European Convention on Human Rights, including a need to prove reasonable suspicion before collecting evidence.

Conference calls on the Labour Party to draw up a Human Rights based policy for the regulation of British Law Enforcement authorities and their investigatory powers. This to include the abolition of Prevent, the repeal of the 2014 Immigration Act and the placing of UK Borders under the auspices of the Data Protection Act.

I’d like to work something about “getitrightfromagenuinesite” in, since that’s allegedly voluntary and yet still surveillance and I should try and work something in on black listing and the public and private sector surveillance of Trade Unions, but the above …

e-counting at #lab18

In my article “Who’s missing?”, I looked at some of the facts about #lab18’s Card Vote 9, strangely the first vote taken. It would seem that there are 179,000 votes missing, although the number missing from Card Vote 10 was smaller at 143,000. The first expectation is that this comes from missing CLP’s but the CLPs that did not come, one would expect to be the smaller and poorer. If one assumes that the average size of the missing CLPs is 500 (the national mean average is ~850) , that would mean that between 286 & 358 CLPs are missing! That can’t be right!. Although another explanation is delegates that hadn’t picked up their voting books, or were away from the floor, which may explain the higher vote on Tuesday a.m. A third explanation might be abstention.

However I know that at least in one case the initial delegation size stated was ½ the accurate number, I wonder if this happened more than once and if when correcting the delegation size, they updated the master system on which the card vote value was held.

On of the principles of e-voting/e-counting is that the voter should be able to see (physically) what they’ve done. This cannot occur at Labour Party Conference as the voting slip has an identification code which is hopefully unique and the card vote value is assigned to it by the counting machine. Since the results are no longer published with line items, no-one knows if the card vote count is accurate. I think something should be done! …

The fringe & TWT

I was a delegate this year, and so attendance at even the official fringe meetings was not easy, the conference is a very full day. The one thing I have observed is that the reality is that “The World Transformed” creates an additional paywall on attending the fringe and this year they were poor at advertising their events, although I did not buy a ticket and so may not have been as well informed as I might. I am not sure this is truly the way to go, Conference is expensive enough as it is and you’ll know from much of my writing that charging for material which can be distributed for free is both morally & economically wrong, but also restricts the power of your message.

The fact is that TWT competes with the Labour Fringe, although it might be much cheaper to organise inside TWT if you get permission.

Others have made pointed comments about their views on the relevance of some sessions to a socialist party. …

Reference back

Every reference back on the NPF report was carried although with the new majority on the NPF this may change but the key thing is that no notice is required! The platform and front bench can be taken by surprise. I see more restrictions on this being written into the new Conference Standing orders. …

Who’s missing?

In my last article I reported on the results of the 1st Card Vote and there’s some interesting insights to be learned.

Firstly the Affiliates and CLP votes are counted seperately, normalised as percentages and then added together, and expressed as a percentage. The Affiliates have 50% and CLPs have 50% of the final result.

1.84 million affiliate votes were cast, and ~385,000 CLP votes. That’s a lot of CLP votes missing. The card vote values should be based on membership (individual members in good standing) as at 31 December 2017, which was 564,000. (That seems a bit high based on press reporting, but the source is the Electoral Commission).

32% missing!

This means that ~32% of the membership were not represented. I was to hear later in he week that only 17 Scottish CLPs are in attendance. My CLP is fortunate in that it could fund a large delegation and considers that policy formulation is important but it’s clear that many CLPs either cannot afford to send a delegation and/or do not consider it important enough. In my evidence to the Democracy Review I argued that the cost of conference should be borne by the NEC, As Diana Holland, the Tresurer reported last year and was to report later; the Party is now debt free. …

Winning a Composite Meeting

Labour Conference approaches and I am keen to ensure that no-one shares my experiences in the Education Compositing Meeting in Liverpool 2016. I published my lessons in this blog post, “Compositing” and I and a friend have made a video capturing those lessons which we hope will be useful to attendees at #lab18.

I hope you find it useful. (The above video is the YouTube version.)

One point of clarification, I am advised that members of the Composite meeting can refuse to accept the composite and insist their words remain on the order paper.


SURL: https://wp.me/p9J8FV-1Ci …

What’s a (LP) conference delegate do?

What’s a (LP) conference delegate do?

You need to be in the conference room for the debates (and votes). It runs from Sunday through to Wednesday lunch and ends with the Leader’s speech. It is likely that Woman’s Conference will be on the preceding Saturday. The most important task is to represent your members by voting on motions, rule changes, reports from the NEC, Officers and the National Policy Forum and in elections because some elections are still conducted at conference. Since a delegation is responsible for representing the organisation that sent it, it is expected that the delegation should vote together …


Labour Conference starts on Saturday! I thought I’d document my experience and lessons from the compositing meeting that I attended last year. I was badly stitched up last year and here are some lessons.

The motions to be included in the composite motion will be issued in a CAC report. Read them all, it will be a clue as to the dividing lines between the organisations. Some of them will be identical.

Work out who’s on your side and then make sure they’re represented by someone who cares. In my meeting last year, delegates were voting to exclude words in their own motion.

Take some words into the meeting, the front bench will. In our case, they used five words from our motion, one of which was “the”. Once in the meeting its too late to recover if they propose egregious surgery.

Speaking rights are valuable; you may be able to swap words for speaking rights, it was tried in our meeting but it’s not easy; you can only buy one vote in this way. (Two actually since there’s mover and seconder).

Understand the meeting procedure, Citrine is no help. The Chair, a member of the Conference Arrangements Committee, wasted time, took no amendment motions to re include excluded words and didn;t ask for votes against, since he knew that the majority of the meeting had voted in favour.

The Chair is not neutral, you need to understand their agenda and the new CAC doesn’t take over ’till the end of Conference.

However, and I wish I had known this last year, the meeting can agree to put more than one motion through. You might need to be a large Trade Union to get away with it but at least one of last year’s meetings put through two motions. …

Impressions from #lab16

It was my first experience of conference as a delegate. Since I rebooted my membership of the Labour Party, I have been arguing for a member led policy making process so it was important to be able to see the pinnacle of the members expression of voice at first hand.

This year was unusual in that on the Saturday, the Special Conference to announce the results of the Leadership election was held. Corbyn won with an increased mandate despite the appalling campaign run against him and the bending of the rules.

As a delegate, one is very busy but often to little effect. Conference remains very stage managed. The rules give primacy of policy initiation to the National Policy Forum, which presents a 250 page report on the proposed programme. This has not met since it was elected last year, so not sure where the NPF report came from, but it’s structures govern the political agenda of Conference, it’s broken into sessions mirroring the policy commissions of the NPF. Motions are submitted but must be “Contemporary” which means pertaining to an event after the publication of the NPF Report, which was mid-August this year. The Conference Arrangements Committee determines if the motions are genuinely “contemporary” and for instance this year ruled that motions on the economy/austerity weren’t contemporary since we had an Economy in July. The CAC also groups the motions into topics. The topics are then voted on by conference in two classes, the Trade Unions and Socialist Societies and the CLPs representing the individual membership. For each of these classes, the top four topics are selected for debate and all organisations submitting motions invited to a meeting to see if agreement on the words can be reached which is a further opportunity for the Leadership to ensure that uncomfortable policies do not reach the floor of conference; it seems a serious mistake was made by the team working on “Employment Rights” as the words on requiring a popular mandate once the terms of Brexit are known obviously got through by accident.

In the Education composite, we were badly stitched up, partly through inexperience. The front bench and CAC brought a form of words which contained four of ours. The front bench believe that they can add to the 22 parliamentary victories from the last term and defeat the Tories on Grammar Schools in parliament; it they believe that if LP conference condemned academies, demanded a return to local democratic control and called on councils to oppose further academisation that this would weaken the parliamentary struggle, or maybe the otherwise impressive Angela Rayner hadn’t covered these issues in the speech she had written. The final motion put to conference had five words from ours and focused exclusively on opposing Grammar Schools, the speech was considered a great success. We should submit our motion to the NPF at their site, it should be signed by the Constituency.

It is my view that the rules and standing orders are there to ensure that the will of the meeting is expressed; they shouldn’t be seen as weapons in a winning or losing contest. It seems this is not a view shared by many of the people acting as Chairs of both Conference and the compositing meetings. In too many cases, the Chair moved to votes on the original proposal without allowing votes and in some cases debate on amendments moved. In one case, the Conference Chair failed to ask for votes against and had to be corrected by the Compliance Unit staff member on the platform. Properly conducted debates and votes heal division, this sort of manipulation does not. What would Citrine say?

The energy debate was interesting; it was written by the Unions, and opposed from the floor for being insufficiently green and too orientated around fossil fuel industries but we can all agree we don’t like fracking.

Card Votes aren’t, each delegate gets a fraction of the organisation’s card vote and thus if mandates are unclear, the votes may council each other out. In our case, we had four delegates, two left, two right and thus most of the card votes will be a net of zero.

I went to the Liberty Fringe meeting, I raised the issue of the Investigatory Powers Act, not much interest.

Delegates had blue badges, the platform and other ex-officio members had red ones and member visitors had orange and yellow badges. On the last day, it was clear that many of the moderates had gone home. The staff cleared the conference hall between the morning sessions and then let people come in, once the delegates and ex-officio seat holders were in, all the hall seats including “balcony” seats were given to the previously excluded member visitors. The atmosphere in the morning had been much better than Tuesday, which was terrible, but the massive number of orange badge holders in the room to listen to Jeremy’s speech can only auger well for 2017, when they come back with blue badges. …