I want to propose a change to Labour’s Rules to ensure that a due process is defined for any expulsions for “supporting” the wrong people. To me, the critical weaknesses of the current rule, apart from its potential for corrupt usage is the chilling effect that banning the support of “political organisations” will have and the lack of due process in evaluating if someone has actually “supported” a political organisation other than Labour. The rest of this article illustrates a possible change and asks advice whether to amend Rule 2.I.4.B or to delete it; I plan to take one of these options to the CLPD AGM to seek support. …

Labour’s Expulsions

Labour’s Expulsions

This has been written over a period of months, and it has never seemed the right moment to publish it as winning the case for justice and then the leadership campaign seemed more important but the issues raised by Jill Mountford’s expulsion just do not go away. In our local party, we have been discussing it since it happened, continuously voting, when permitted for an explanation, an appeal hearing and latterly in support of the Chakrabarti Inquiry recommendations establishing the principles of natural justice, due process and proportionality, all missing from Jill’s exclusion and the subsequent actions. During the leadership election the issues come to the fore as Tom Watson, the Courts and then Owen Smith turn up the heat. The temperature is now raised again by the Despatches programme and its trailers in the Murdoch press. This article talks about why she should be welcomed, as an individual and in principle, the rules of natural justice and the rules of the Labour Party. Jill Mountford was expelled through administrative action for allegedly supporting the AWL. Jill had rejoined the Labour Party in the aftermath of the 2015 General Election …


A shortish, note about the Labour Party selectorate purges. Firstly, about whether we should be criticising the Party’s staff and Officers, secondly about the influence of Smith’s campaign’s backers and thirdly examining one or two cases of the 2nd stage exclusions of members but presumably mainly registered supporters.

The General Secretary is an Officer, appointed by the NEC and Conference and holds office at the satisfaction of those two bodies. Discussing the issue of “satisfaction” is legitimate discourse within the Party.

It’s clear that Labour First are encouraging their supporters to make complaints about people and while they will claim this is to stop cheating and Entryism, the NEC have decided that candidates for Registered Supporter must have no support for other “political organisations” for the previous two years, which will include time in which they may have been members of different parties.  NB We do not place this waiting period on MPs or Councillors “crossing the floor”. This is wrong in so many ways; the most upbeat point to make is that we should be welcoming people who have changed their minds about the best way to build a better society, not placing a two year pre-entry probationary period on them. The anonymous accusations are also worrying.

The charge of trotsyist entryism is designed to justify the inspections and exclusions (and the 6 month freeze date) but the resultant exclusions seem to have mainly hit ex-greens, including some who joined last year and long term members whose 8 week provisional membership period is well over.

One of the most egregious exclusions has been that of the Catherine Starr, whom it would seem has been excluded for expressing her extreme support of the Foo Fighters. (I believe that they are a popular beat combo.)  The Canary cover these purges well in this article, “Another Labour purge…”, and highlight the case of Dr Gemma Angel who was previously a Green Party supporter, joined Labour and has been excluded due to her previous public support of the Greens, the evidence being one tweet! An interesting aspect of this is the notice letter,

where McNicol makes it clear that he has taken advice from the NEC, which in my book may not be legal since the NEC is his supervisory body and these duties are his or his delegates alone. This takes us to the issues of segregation of duties within the disciplinary process required for the purposes of natural justice and anti-corruption control. The letter also documents their two year silence rule.

The third case of interest is that of Cllr Pamela Fitzpatrick, where it would seem vexatious and false allegations of abusive behaviour have been made about a Labour Councillor with many years of membership, leading to her suspension, loss of vote in the Leadership election and loss of whip on the Council meaning she can’t pursue her leadership role in fighting domestic violence.

This isn’t right!


I’d hoped this would have been shorter. …