Labour’s leak, rights of privacy and the public interest

This is the first part of my three part article on the Labour leak of a management report into the activities of Labour’s Governance and Legal Unit (GLU) in its handling of anti-semitism complaints. This part looks at the act of the leak, the legal (or lack of) immunities, the rights of the employees and those of the management and the anti-corruption laws, basically the legal position outside the rules of the Party. For more, see overleaf ...

Fatal Weaknesses

Fatal Weaknesses

This is part II of my commentary on the Labour Leak, it looks at the missteps and failures to control the bureaucracy from 2015 to 2019 and looks at the structural faults, the need for a robust segregation of duties, how Labour has changed its rules to make expulsion of alleged antisemites or troublemaker’s easier and how McNicol’s eventual departure allowed both damage to be continued and a cover-up to become deeply embedded within the Party.

Closing the Stable Door II

Tye Labour Party’s inquiry, now known as the “Forde Inquiry” after its independent chair, Dr Martin Forde, into the leaking of its investigation into the activities of its complaints team and senior management has published a call for evidence. It’s web site is at fordeinquiry,org and the call for evidence page is here and behind the image.

I plan to make a submission based on Unanswered Questions, also Closing the Stable Door and a third one based on the various acts in breach of the member’s charter, the rules and the law which impacted me personally.  …

Labour Leak – Closing the Stable Door

Labour Leak – Closing the Stable Door

This blog article is one of several albeit the first published on the labourleak. It focuses on fixing the problems identified and implied in the #labourleak in a holistic way. It looks at the controls, briefly on why they failed, how the private sector manages, the question of Union collusion, IT standards & controls, the disciplinary process, the NEC and if genuine professionalism can possibly improve the quality and honesty of the decisions taken by the Labour Party; it concludes by proposing that the rules be changed to place a duty on all role holders to conform to the Nolan Principles, and that whistle blowers have better protection, but on the way recommends that the Labour Party use a series of external certifications, ask the Auditors to to inspect that payments and receipts are handled according to the Party's financial control rules, increase the professionalism of the staff and NEC committees, all of this to guarantee to its members and staff that good practice and not arbitrary actions are the guiding principles of judgement and decision.

Unanswered Questions

The terms of reference allow the Forde Inquiry panel to look at any issue it chooses. I have written to them and asked that it considers the following,

  1. Did anyone unnamed in the report take part in the activities identified by the report? If so who?
  2. Did ‘improper behaviour’ occur during the decisions taken in the selection process for candidates for the 2017 General Election? If so, by whom?
  3. To what extent did the ‘improper behaviour’ identified by the report also apply to complaints of bullying, slander, racism and the manipulation of selection processes for council and MEP candidates?
  4. To what extent were the selections, staff appointments and performance management processes improperly influenced by racism or factional advantage?
  5. Were Party funds spent in accordance with the Party’s financial control procedures and correctly accounted for? (Why did the Party run a £1.4m surplus in 2017, a year in which a General Election was held?)

If for whatever reason, it decides not to investigate these areas, I would ask that it highlights them as matters of concern and recommend that these areas are investigated by follow up independent panels. …