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.

Yet again, a purge!
Tagged on:                     

6 thoughts on “Yet again, a purge!

  • 18th July 2021 at 5:34 pm

    WE note the dreadful timing, the day that Johnson and Sunak u-turn on avoiding isolation and the day before the Tories release herd immunity III. The Labour leadership doesn’t’ give a shit.

  • 19th July 2021 at 10:35 am

    The proposal is completely outwith the rules and would be ultra vires. There is no Rule that permits proscription of an entire political organisation and then expulsion of its members.

    It shouldn’t be voted on at all because it is not a lawful discretionary choice by the NEC. If no contractual discretion to do this exists in the rules then it cannot be voted on. Under Chapter 1.X.5 it states:

    5. For the avoidance of any doubt, any dispute as to the meaning, interpretation or general application of the constitution, standing orders and rules of the Party or any unit of the Party shall be referred to the NEC for determination, and the decision of the NEC thereupon shall be final and conclusive for all purposes….

    This does not supersede the common law requirement that any interpretation must be legally correct. The NEC may interpret the rules but must do so in a way that is legally proper and the NEC has no power to decide on an interpretation that is wholly wrong, or clearly ultra vires.

    Any decision to proscribe these groups is not permitted under 2.I.4.B or 2.I.3.C and there is no general discretionary authority for the NEC to proscribe ‘political organisations’. Any such decision is ultra vires, clearly open to a Wednesbury irrationality challenge and falls foul of the precedent set by the Court of Appeal in Evangelou v McNicol [2016]:

    Lord Justice Beatson “It is, however, relevant to note that a discretion conferred on a party under a contract is subject to control which limits the discretion as a matter of necessary implication by concepts of honesty, good faith and genuineness, and need for absence of arbitrariness, capriciousness, perversity and irrationality: see Sochimer International Bank Ltd v Standard Bank London Ltd [2008] EWCA Civ 116, [2008] Bus LR 134 at [66] and Braganza v BP Shipping [2015] UKSC 17, [2015] 1 WLR 1661,…”

    It is a farce it is even being discussed. I suggest a proper independent barristers opinion be obtained first before any action is taken that could open the Party up to expensive litigation risks from hundreds of claimants.

    This is a cross post from Facebook, the comments were made by Duncan Shipley Dalton.

  • 19th July 2021 at 4:12 pm

    I have just received this from a correspondent,

    Looks like Starmer and Evans have opened up a huge hornets nest. In saying they will proscribe Socialist Appeal, 300 members mostly young students who believe in Marxism (big deal), they have enabled the right to call for proscribing of many other organisations. The comments they are making are vile and the act itself could be in breach of the equalities act, political belief is a protected characteristic; if an equalities act claim is made and the party has been informed that they risked such a claim then each individual member of the NEC is personally liable and indemnity would not apply . Tough being an agent of Labour isn’t it?

  • 20th July 2021 at 9:44 am

    I added the final line, about petitions and statements today.

  • Pingback:Labour’s new disciplinary processes –

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: