Latest post on Left Futures

How a party faction is preventing party members voting for me for Labour’s NEC

Over the paRheaWolfsonst few weeks, I have been delighted to receive support for my candidacy for Labour’s National Executive Committee (NEC) from a broad spectrum of opinion within the party, including nominations from dozens of Constituency Labour Parties (CLPs). It is clear that many members want to see me elected to the NEC.

However, I am now concerned that a faction of the party are trying to take that option away from the membership. To appear on the ballot I needed to secure, amongst other things, the nomination of my home CLP.

Last night Eastwood CLP, where my family home is, met to nominate candidates for the NEC. It was proposed that, given I am currently a member of the CLP, there would be a straight vote for or against my nomination. I made my case and answered questions from the room. I was then asked to leave the room while they discussed my nomination further. Once I had left, the ex-leader of Scottish Labour, Jim Murphy, appealed to the CLP to not nominate me. He argued that it would not be appropriate to nominate me due to my endorsement by Momentum, which he claimed has a problem with antisemitism. The constituency has a large Jewish population. The CLP then voted to not endorse me, before re-inviting me back into the room.

Needless to say, this is hugely disappointing. It is disappointing because I am the only Jewish candidate in this election, because the wide range of organisations endorsing me includes the Jewish Labour Movement, and because I have a long record of challenging antisemitism and have in fact faced it on a daily basis since my candidacy was announced. But above all, it is disappointing because I know there are many members who want to vote for me, who could now have lost that opportunity. I am considering my options going forward.

159 Comments

  1. Peter says:

    The headline says “party faction” yet the text says that the local Labour Party branch didn’t vote for Rhea. Presumably this was after speeches by multiple people, the article only names two Rhea and Jim “I lost Scotland” Murphy.

    Doesn’t sound like a party faction stopping someone to me. It sounds like a loss in a democratic vote. [The system might be wrong, but that’s a different argument.]

    Who is trying to mislead people? The author or an editor?

    1. Jon Lansman says:

      Thereis nothing democratic about Rhea have been asked to leave a meeting at which she was entitled to speak and vote only for the former leader of the Scottish party to attack her behind her back and argue for blocking her. It is the party’s members all over the country who should have the right to choose whether or not to put her on the NEC.

      1. Dave Roberts says:

        Can someone clarify if it correct to ask the candidate to leave the room and if it was done only to this candidate?

      2. Kate Thomas says:

        This is absolutely disgraceful. Following the logic of Murphy’s argument all the 10,000’s of Momentum supporters are antisemitic. Who are the Momentum supporters? The left in the Labour Party, ‘the broad church’. This is tantamount to stifling debate within the party, and in particular our way forward to being elected to Government in 2020. Given the huge failures in the Blair/Brown years – going to war in Iraq, introducing Academy Schools, their response to the banking crisis, to name but a few – the debate now is essential. Even the IMF think that neoliberalism has failed, so we as a party need to define our policies for a new kind of Labour, we need people like Rhea.

      3. Gillian Williams says:

        What I dont understand is why Rhea doesnt accept the democratic vote Eastwood clp made.They didnt know her she went for the first time to ask them to nominate her. They made the decision not to nominate her,she should accept it. Not try blame Jim Murphy when it was a majority vote .
        They arent obliged to vote for someone and have reached a democratic decision.
        It should be accepted.

    2. Matty says:

      It’s extremely petty for a CLP to refuse to nominate one of its own members for an election, particularly a young member. Most CLP’s try to encourage young members to get involved. Jim Murphy as the ex-MP obviously holds a lot of sway – there are a lot of people who see MP’s as demi-gods unfortunately.. For Murphy to get involved in this is as petty as you can get – no wonder the Scottish Labour Party is in such a mess having had guys like this at the helm.

      1. Karl Stewart says:

        Hard to believe that even today, after Labour has suffered catastrophic defeat after catastrophic defeat, is down to perhaps two or three thousand members, and is now in third place behind the Tories, entirely because of red Tories like Murphy and his ilk, that members of a Scottish CLP could still, today, follow Murphy like a bunch of sheep.

        All the time Scottish Labour is dominated by people like that, who take moronic, anti-Semitic decisions like that, then they’ll never recover electorally – and frankly, they don’t deserve to.

        It’s about time the Labour Party’s national leadership took some firm and decisive action against these hard-right, red Tory scumbags.

        This CLP and Murphy should be booted out.
        And Rhea should be apologised to and formally confirmed as a candidate.

  2. Mervyn Hyde (@mjh0421) says:

    Jim Murphy the catastrophic loser in Scotland using the only methods he knows to win, smear.

  3. EllyS says:

    It is undoubtedly unjust. Let’s look at how this discriminatory decision was facilitated however. The Jewish Labour Movement (JLM) – whose support Wolfson enjoys – are playing a leading role in the antisemitism smear against the Corbyn-led Labour Party, and are ideologically more aligned with centre-left think tank, Progress which has strong overlap with Labour Friends of Israel [This is no conspiracy theory: it’s a fact]. It is as a result of highly partisan, pro-Israel groups like JLM that Jim Murphy believes Momentum has an antisemitism problem. Indeed, JLM tweeted their disapproval of the lifting of Jackie Walker’s suspension just this week. Wolfson has a choice: defend her support for Corbyn and reject the smear against Momentum by JLM et al, OR side with JLM and denounce Corbyn and Momentum, as they do.

    1. This is typical Murphy. Murphy sits on the Policy Council of the Muslim baiting/hating Henry Jackson Society. How he gets to stay in the Labour Party I will never understand. I couldn’t vote for Rhea. She is too far in bed with the highly toxic Jewish Labour Movement and too committed to restricting freedom of expression in the Party.

      But she clearly has earned the right to be on the slate and to pull some cheap stunt to prevent her, is, well, Murphy.

      1. When are you people going to wake up and smell the roses re the Zionist gutter press. Look at this and compare the headline and sub heading with what Rhea actually said. Note that ” he said” is missing. It is introduced later in the text but the impression is already established. The Jewish Chronicle for whom Jon rents out quotes is ten times worse.

        http://jewishnews.timesofisrael.com/jewish-labour-candidate-fails-in-bid-to-replace-ken-on-nec-slate/

        1. Nestor says:

          Jesus wept, Stevie Knickers, not everything is about a vast Zionist conspiracy.

          In fact, pretty much nothing is.

          1. yyyyyaaaawwwwwnnnnn

          2. john P Reid says:

            stephen Bellamy ,you find Hamas saying they want to wipe Jews in Israel off the planet, something to Snore about?

          3. Rob Bab says:

            @JPR
            I checked with the find function (Ctrl/F) and it appears it is you and you alone that has mentioned Hamas on this comment section.
            Seriously, what’s with all the projecting?
            Wake up John, now you’re even confusing snoring with yawning. Or maybe you were just being anti-yawnitic.

          4. John P Reid. says:

            The smear that the Zionist, obsession, is more than self defence, well when those who go on about it, they are the ones who will go so far to criticize Israel,they’ll turn a blind eye to those who want to wipe Jews off the planet I don’t find that something to snore about

  4. Nestor says:

    This is shocking.

    A baseless smear campaign by Murphy who by his own standards, as a practising Catholic, should have removed himself from having the right to voice his opinion as a supporter of an organisation that has a problem with antisemitism.

    Oh, and homophobia.

    And let’s not forget misogyny.

    1. Richard House says:

      And ageism.

  5. Jack says:

    Why weren’t the left organised locally? Murphy may be influential, but surely some planning should have gone into this.

  6. Martin Hodges says:

    Jim Murphys actions are reprehensible. This need investigating. Reha Wolfson should ask for the nomination to be put on hold untill a full investigation has taken place.

  7. Tony says:

    “To appear on the ballot I needed to secure, amongst other things, the nomination of my home CLP.”

    That seems a very strange rule indeed.

    As for Murphy, I remember reading an article by him in the New Statesman earlier this year where he listed the Attlee government’s two greatest achievements:

    1. The NHS

    2 Nuclear weapons!

    1. One strange rule among many

  8. Hazel Malcolm-Walker says:

    Surely Jim Murphy is guilty of antisemitism – convicted out of his own mouth of slandering two women one Jewish, one of Jewish extraction AND CLEARED BY THE NEC OF ANTISEMITISM!
    He shouldbe reported to the NEC for the offences he has accused these women of.
    He is a poor excuse for a human being!

    1. David Pavett says:

      @Hazel Malcolm-Walker. I am strongly opposed to the political ideas and political practice of Jim Murphy. All the same he has as much right to natural justice as the rest of us – however reprehensible his views and activities. Not to recognise that is to present a very unwelcome facet of left thinking. If you are going to accuse Murphy of the things you have accused him of then you need to present the evidence. You have provided none. This is just not on if we are to show that the left stands for higher standards of behaviour.

      You also should understand that even if he had “slandered” a Jewish person (you give no evidence) this is not, by itself, anti-Semitism. For that you would have to show that the content of the alleged slander was anti-Semitic. You have done none of this.

      1. Hazel Malcolm-Walker says:

        I wasn’t at the meeting.
        This is not a spurious case, like Jaqui Walker.
        Rhea Wolfson has been subnect to specific attacks on social media. It needs to be examined seriously against the backgound of in appropriate behaviour.

        1. David Pavett says:

          I take your response as an admission that you can’t back your accusations.

      2. Tim Wilkinson says:

        David Pavett

        Regardless of the merits (though incidentally calling for someone to be reported to the NEC isn’t exactly a good example of lynch mob mentality) I don’t think you should present a lack of concern for due process as a ‘facet of left thinking’ as if it were any more prevalent on the left than anywhere else.

        Anti-left propaganda (like most propaganda, eg the very effective ‘closed curtains when you’re off to work’ trope) is designed to exploit anxieties and trigger people to search for ‘confirming’ instances from their own experience, without regard for whether those instances are representative.

        We saw this in the anti-semitism smear campaign, with far too many people willing to be ‘balanced’ in that contemporary ‘he-said she-said’ sense and grant that there must be something in it (cue to dredge up memory of some drunken member of grouplet X who in 1986 memorably shocked all present by going off on one about Jewish bankers or whatever).

        There is a strong risk here of buying into and thus reinforcing stereotypes. It’s prima facie not a ‘facet of left thinking’ if it’s common (or no less uncommon) across all other political orientations.

        1. Tim Wilkinson says:

          ‘no *more* uncommon’

        2. David Pavett says:

          I never claimed that lack of concern for due process was peculiar the the left. I expect it from the right. It bothers me a lot when it appears on the left.

          I have never believed in the sort of false balanced approach you refer to.

  9. John Penney says:

    The Labour Right will certainly stop at nothing to sabotage Left wingers getting into positions of Party influence. Eastwood CLP must be a very stupid or very Right wing body of people to fall for Murphy’s transparent wheeze.

    I am still intending to include you in the Centre Left Slate for the NEC positions on 17th June at my own CLP meeting – and will continue to do so .

    Surely this some way around this utter nonsense ?

    1. John P Reid says:

      Why do they call themselves centre left, they’re on the far left

  10. Karl Stewart says:

    What a disgusting anti-Semite Jim Murphy is, to block the nomination of the only jewish candidate in the whole election.

    And what a pathetic shower the rest of the local party members are.

    Murphy and the sheep who followed him should all be expelled for this blatant anti-Semitism.

  11. Chin up, Rhea. We’ve all been there. Many years ago, my own home Constituency Labour Party spitefully refused to nominate me for the National Executive Committee. It was dominated by its intellectually challenged then MP, who soon afterwards became a catastrophic Chief Whip.

    Just as I am proud to be banned for life from her party, from the party of the disgraceful Labour Group on Durham County Council, from the party of the MPs who literally applauded a war, from the party of Sadiq Khan’s shared platform with David Cameron (as ruled out by Tom Watson on today’s World at One), and from the party of Tony Blair, so I am proud to be banned for life from the party of Jim Murphy.

    Murphy’s parents’ move to South Africa in 1979 can only have been a political act. A lot of people were made redundant and did not move to the apartheid state. Specifically, the Murphies wound up in the Western Cape, and they seem to have had something to do with Robben Island while Nelson Mandela was imprisoned there. In any event, it is worth looking into exactly what they were doing under P W Botha.

    It is also worth looking into exactly what their son was doing under P W Botha. He was there between the ages of 12 and 18. Culturally speaking, he is more than anything a 1980s white South African, and one raised in a home that had been set up specifically in order to avail itself of the opportunities presented by that order.

    The age of conscription into the South African Defence Force was 16, or when you left school, whichever happened later. Murphy’s subsequent nine years at university without ever taking a degree indicate that he has never been much of an academic shining light. He turned 16 in 1983.

    Had the apartheid regime still existed in 1994, when it was not long gone, then some sort of rapprochement with it would have been integral to Tony Blair’s “modernisation” project. If there was one thing on which Old Labour was united, then it was opposition to apartheid. But the Thatcherite press expressed a very different view. Guess which line Blair would have taken.

    Moreover, from September 2001 onwards, apartheid South Africa would have met every criterion, and surpassed most or all of them, for classification as a key “partner” in “The War Against Terror”, which my erstwhile housemate, who went on to be the Labour Party’s Head of Research, used in those days to say ought to be known by its acronym.

    1. historyintime says:

      I thought there was to be more decorum on the site.

      This, which has been posted before, is an absurd smear job. Worse, its similar to smear jobs that are applied to Left people.

  12. alana moralen says:

    Of course you should be endorsed by your local party as they know you best but that a pro Israeli lobby should accuse you of being anti Semetic is the problem with the Labour Party.
    First, there is a difference between being a Jew and being pro Israeli.
    Second, that you should be accuse of what is in effect a crime and have no right to respond is criminal. Where is the evidence?
    In its old history, the Labour Party questioned the role of the state itself and certainly of religion to have a central role in politics.
    Momentum is not banned, so how can being part of a non banned organization disqualify you from post?
    Murphy is on old Blairite, the sooner he goes the better but change takes time, so be patient and it will happen.

    1. Jon Lansman says:

      The ballot that counts is a national ballot. The views of your own CLP which may be hostil to you for political reasons is irrelevant. Surely members nationally have a right to choose their own representatives. They do in the CAC elections, where there is no requirement to have a nomination from your home CLP.

  13. John P Reid says:

    Democracy, a cLP a faction?, good luck getting ing on the slate though, I find it disgusting that the suggestion you’ve been backed is due to anti semeticism though

  14. Andrew Coates says:

    This is very bad news. She is an excellent candidate, and the charges he used against her are beyond ridiculous: they verge on the obscene.

    I hope Rhea she is related to my sister’s teenage friend, another Wolfson, who would not let anybody thwart her feminist socialist resolve.

  15. Jim Denham says:

    This is a disgrace: I trust all Momentum supporters (and indeed, all democrats within Labour) will rally round Rhea and condemn that shit Murphy.

    1. Nestor says:

      Shit is an entirely apposite word for that man.

      I wonder if after being instrumental in losing Scotland for Labour, losing his seat and the right losing the leadership of his party, this petty, vindictive “victory” that he’s pulled out all the stops to achieve allowed him to do a small fist pump of self-love.

      Vindictiveness is, it seems, all that the abject failures on the right of the party have left to cling to.

  16. Karl Stewart says:

    If this was a right-wing candidate being blocked in similar circumstances, the right would be demanding expulsions.

    If the left want to be taken seriously, it needs to stop being so wimpish all the time. This is outrageous and needs to be fought.

  17. Bazza says:

    Another silly rule to get rid of and perhaps an emergency resolution to the NEC or Conference to change this?
    Shows the scale of the task in Scotland where some of the Left have been conned into joining the ‘radical’ SNP but I guess with episodes like this perhaps you can see why!
    We need more Corbynistas to join Labour in Scotland and a Left Wing Leader and Party there to take on the born again fake social democratics of the SNP.
    The right wing simpletons actually enjoy fighting the Left in Labour (these self-apointed policemen of the working class/working people – and it usually is men) like the simpletons in Labour First/Progress though Progress are more middle class settle for crumbs for working people as long as they can be on or near the top table.
    Whilst of course many working people and the poor are really hurting under the Tories and we have these right wing irritants trying to hold us back!
    Jim & John & co there’s plenty of allotments in Scotland you could serve the community better by attending to them.
    They know how to carry out crafty manoeuvres but Rhea should not have left the room, they had no right to ask her to leave and may have broken Labour Party rules in doing so?
    I will vote for the 6 on the left slate until we get a more democratic way of picking 6 left candidates next year and I am sorry great and good of the left some of you too may have to give up your places on the top table too, as socialists with new ideas and organisation skills emerge.
    Of course you will be entitled to put your case but the grassroots left should decide.
    And it should be about ideas and organisation, organisation, organisation!

  18. Sue says:

    This, at any rate, seems to confirm to me that my opinion of Jim Murphy is correct!

  19. Stephanie David says:

    I’m really sorry to hear this. How can anyone be so petty. Have to admit that I played a bit of politics last week to you named by my CLP who also selected Pete Willsman and despite my loud protest Luke Akehurst (who they didn’t know). They wouldn’t select Christine (due to her being suspended) so I nominated yourself. Murphy is a shit…. and a bad loser.

  20. Rob Bab says:

    @Dan
    That’s a bit strong Dan, pedo? Nazi? Nah I think the problem is that the word(s) “anti-Semitism” is wrongly used and over used. It’s got to the point where if when speaking about Jews and the conversation gets critical in any way or to any degree, the word anti-Semitism is thrown about. It used to silence people before but less so now.
    The ADL, JC etc thrive on ‘anti-Semitism’ and the fear of, as it drives Jews to make Aliya.
    This video shows this in the mind-set of the Jewish immigrants invading Palestine from Europe. Well worth watching;
    https://news.vice.com/video/europes-jewish-exodus-full-length

    1. Dan says:

      Nothing is too harsh when fighting evil

  21. Rob Bab says:

    @Dan
    Nah I think the problem is that the word(s) “anti-Semitism” is wrongly used and over used. It’s got to the point where if when speaking about Jews and the conversation gets critical in any way or to any degree, the word anti- Semitism is thrown about. It used to silence people before but less so now.
    The ADL, JC etc thrive on ‘anti-Semitism’ and the fear of, as it drives Jews to make Aliya.
    This video shows this in the mind-set of the Jewish immigrants invading Palestine from Europe. Well worth watching;
    https://news.vice.com/video/europes-jewish-exodus-full-length

    1. Nestor says:

      “immigrants invading”?

      Why don’t you tit off to UKIP?

      1. Rob Bab says:

        @Nestor
        I’d watch the video first before you start gobbing off with your knee jerk word-police nonsense. You appear, from other comments, to be quite ignorant of the on-going situation in Palestine or maybe it’s you just don’t care?

        1. Nestor says:

          I certainly don’t care for the opinion of the sort of person who uses the phrase “immigrants invading”, in whatever context.

          1. Rob Bab says:

            @Nestor
            “I certainly don’t care for the opinion of the sort of person who uses the phrase “immigrants invading”, in whatever context.”
            Haha you are hilarious. If you’d watched the video like I’d asked, you would have seen the French Jews migrating to Israel to live. That makes them immigrants.
            A growing percentage of these French Jewish migrants were uninvited, setting up residence in the armed illegal settlements on the West Bank.
            So in the context of the situation in Palestine, these ‘immigrants’ were ‘invading’ whether you like it or not.
            Immigrant – a person who migrates to another country, usually for permanent residence.
            Invading – to enter forcefully as an enemy; go into with hostile intent.
            btw that is why it is incorrect to refer to immigrants coming to this country as “invading” because they are not.
            Do you think there was an element of “invading” when the European “migrants” who settled in the Americas slaughtered the Natives? Or do you describe it another way?

  22. Peter Willsman says:

    Comrades need to understand what is going on.The Hard Right(Lab First,Sec Fixer-Luke Akehurst.and the Blairites,with their 3 mill from Lord Sainsbury)are totally focused on getting control of the NEC,then JC will be a sitting duck and could be gone by Christmas.They know exactly what they are doing.The Blairite Murphy packed the All Members Meeting,he wasn’t acting as an individual in the CLP,comrades need to wise up.The Right are,and have always been,utterly ruthless.We could have done exactly the same to Akehurst in Oxford and Wheeler in Salford.The week before Fixer-Luke got 3 votes for Trident and some 83 against,so O’ford is totally opposed to F-L’s views.But comrades in O’ford and Salford took Lansperson’s view ie that it’s a matter for the general membership.We have a meeting in O’ford in a week or so and I am thinking of being a bit ruthless myself and asking the CLP to withdraw F-L’s home nom.Thus treat the bastards like they’ve treated our Rhea.I would appreciate the views of comrades-lets have a survey on LFs like they have surveys on LabList.

    1. John Walsh says:

      Two great ideas PW – fight back against the new tactics used by the right / canvas the views of fellow LF people. As you point out, Murphy “wasn’t acting as an individual in the CLP”. For me, this is central to the argument for a need to change tactics.

      1. Steve says:

        Pete, your idea of removing luke (and any other right CLP nominees) from his home CLP is VITAL.

        Start networking to follow the 5 point nomination plan i sent you the other day.

        It doesnt need to be someone hyperintellectual. Just someone vaguely intelligent and supportive of Jeremy.

        A shotgun approach (lots of bullets so one hits) is now necessary.

        This is an emergency. We have 22 days to nominate someone.

        Entirely possible. IF we work fast.

        Im not waiting. We need someone in every constituency that still has a CLP left nominating a Corbynite candidate.

        As i understand it Salford is possible to remove nominees, being a Left heartland, too. I have a very very close friend in the Salford constituency. Let me know.

        How did Jim Murphy pack an all members meeting if all members meetings only let delegates from branches vote?

        Steven.

    2. John Penney says:

      Yep, withdraw his nomination ASAP .

      It defies belief that the Left majority in Oxford are so naïve as to support this utterly poisonous individual’s candidacy, out of some sort of misplaced “sporting fairness” motivation ! The Akehurst’s of the Party will destroy it without a moment’s hesitation rather than let Labour pursue a genuinely Left programme.

    3. John P Reid says:

      Someone who backed Ed miliband for leader in 2010 and Tom Watson for deputy is hard right,lol
      The fact you call them bastards and say you’ve got any power to oust them form NEC nominations shows you’ve no place in the Labour Party.

    4. John P Reid says:

      good to see labour first have cached this quote and sent it to their followers to show how disgusting the hard left have become

      1. peter willsman says:

        JPR,I am told that F-L has said that H Wilson’s biggest mistake was not invading Vietnam with the US and what he is most proud of re the Blair Govt was the invasion of IRAQ.Also see GrassrootsLabour(Shenanigans)where we took from his website that Party officials should, in effect,cheat against the Left.I can see that you are a sensitive soul and I apologise for swearing.But what else do you call the Right for plotting against Rhea and making her leave the room and so couldn’t defend herself?JPR,please cover your eyes,but they are complete ruthless bastards.Yours,PW.

  23. Bazza says:

    Yes we need to get the word out – vote for the Left NEC slate for Jeremy and your own power or get Progress/Labour First and make Labour in the UK like Labour in Scotland!
    We want real progressive change and they grovel to Neo-Liberalism and try to ‘police’ the working class/working people deciding what they deem they should have which is usually crumbs as long as they themselves are near or on the top table.
    Hopefully history has passed them by and members will not give their power back to the Right Wing Labour top downers!

  24. Rob Bab says:

    @Rhea
    Hi Rhea, it was a good idea to write this piece because it shows how you’re prepared to confront your critics and are willing to hear criticism, in the open, respect.
    Now this Jim Murphy comes across as a slippery devil but it’s not all on his head, your lack of nomination, the others in the room must take their share of responsibility. They have their own minds and opinions also.
    I found this bit in the piece a little confusing, can you or someone elaborate please;
    “Labour, Jim Murphy, appealed to the CLP to not nominate me. He argued that it would not be appropriate to nominate me due to my endorsement by Momentum, which he claimed has a problem with antisemitism. The constituency has a large Jewish population. The CLP then voted to not endorse me, before re-inviting me back into the room.”
    1. Did JM brake a rule by appealing to the CLP?
    2. Was JM accusing any Momentum members of being anti-Semites?
    3. So the CLP, because of the large Jew vote in the constituency, thought somehow you would be a liability to the voting? Was the CLP made up of Jews, if so what ratio?

    When you say;
    “It is disappointing because I am the only Jewish candidate in this election,”
    Hmmm why is that important, that you’re Jewish? It should not make any difference to how you treat your constituents or do your job. If you bring your Jewness into the Arena of Power expect your Jewness to be up for scrutiny ie;
    Do you support the Apartheid State of Israel?
    Do you condone it’s oppression of the Palestinians?
    Do you encourage scrutiny and exposure of the Israeli regime?
    As a Socialist do you stand in Solidarity with oppressed people?

    “I have a long record of challenging antisemitism…”
    Yes and Jimmy boy probably says the same thing considering he was Chair of Labour Friends of Israel. With you being backed by the Zionist Jewish Labour Movement, well it’s all getting a little too… Israelcentric dontcha think?
    Rhea what happened to you was done by a Zionist. Work for Britain not for Israel and I’ll vote for ya 🙂

    1. Nestor says:

      “it’s all getting a little too… Israelcentric dontcha think?”

      Like everything you post, it would seem.

      You give every appearance of being a monomaniacal bigot.

      1. Rob Bab says:

        Haha, “monomaniacal” very good, I like it. So let’s have a conversation then.
        Ok, do you want to go first?

        1. I think Nestor has it in mind that all this Labour and ” anti-Semitism” , Momentum and ” anti-Semitism ” stuff has something to do with racism. All very touching really

          He also seems to think that when Jimbo says Rhea shouldn’t be nominated because she has been endorsed by Momentum which is an antisemitc organisation he is hitting us with some kind of empirical proposition.

          1. Rob Bab says:

            @SB
            “He also seems to think that when Jimbo says Rhea shouldn’t be nominated because she has been endorsed by Momentum which is an antisemitc organisation he is hitting us with some kind of empirical proposition.”
            Do you think Nestor’s got a little secret that he’s finding hard to conceal? Sitting on the bench heckling from the side-lines, not engaging in debate, also makes me wonder if he’s actually started to believe the scurrilous accusations of “anti-Semitism in the Labour Party” or worse still, he’s encouraging them!

      2. Karl Stewart says:

        Nestor’s right Rob, you are coming across as a bigot.

        The red Tory Murphy and the racist morons of Eastwood CLP have broken the rules against discrimination, by blocking the only jewish candidate from the NEC election.

        Murphy and Eastwood CLP should be booted out for anti-semitism.

        1. Rob Bab says:

          @Karl
          Hey Karl which bit of my comment is bigoted?
          Do you think I’m supporting Jimbo? If you do, read it again. I was asking for clarification as, for me, the article needs more content.
          Karl you seem to be quite sure of yourself that the Eastwood CLP was made up of racist anti-Semites. How do you know that? Can you name them?
          Just because they didn’t vote in someone who just happened to be Jewish doesn’t automatically make that decision or them anti-Semitic or racist, otherwise Jewish people will have a special status which is open to abuse.
          Obviously, going by Rhea’s account Jimbo was up to no good. Now he is a friend of the Jews, he’s a friend of Israel. Rhea is a Jew, she’s not self-hating and she to is supportive of Israel and they’re both in the Labour Party – so what gives?!?!

          1. Karl Stewart says:

            From the account of the events, it appears Murphy told Rhea to leave the meeting and then made anti-Semitic comments to the meeting behind her back, after which the Eastwood sheep blocked her candidacy.

            I’ve no idea if you were there or if you were one of the Eastwood sheep. But your comments above struck me as bigoted against jews.

          2. Rob Bab says:

            @Karl
            “From the account of the events, it appears Murphy told Rhea to leave the meeting and then made anti-Semitic comments to the meeting behind her back…”
            Yes Karl of course it appears that way, Rhea wrote the article. Now what I’m asking is how does Rhea know that “anti-Semitic comments” were made.
            1. Did she have a recording device in the meeting?
            2. Were the comments minuted?
            3. Did Rhea have a ‘friend’ in the meeting?

            You seem to be jumping to conclusions Karl about the integrity of the Eastwood CLP.
            Rhea needs some evidence to back her claims, otherwise it just appears to be yet another anti-Semitic conspiracy theory.

            “But your comments above struck me as bigoted against jews.”
            It’s the second time I’m asking you Karl, which comments? In what way are they bigoted? Be specific and clear otherwise I’ll take your silence on the matter as a humble apology 🙂

          3. Karl Stewart says:

            Reply to Rob Bab 11.57:

            It’s my opinion that your comments come across to me as bigoted.

            If you think your comments are fine, have another read through what you’ve written.

            It’s your problem to deal with Rob.

          4. Rob Bab says:

            @Karl
            Apology accepted x

          5. Tim Wilkinson says:

            Comments about ‘Jewness’ and the ‘Jew vote’ are not acceptable. If this apparently hostile wording is inadvertent, take this as friendly notice to take more care. If not, then you’re no friend of mine or the Labour party.

            Someone who (like me) doesn’t know you might well suspect you of deliberately planting comments with an antisemitic flavour, that could be used later to smear Labour Futures.

          6. Rob Bab says:

            @Tim Wilkinson
            “Comments about ‘Jewness’ and the ‘Jew vote’ are not acceptable.”
            Ok understood. I will cease using them words. My friend who’s at university explained to me tonight why them words used in that way could be understood as offensive. I was only mentioning the “Jewish vote” because Rhea had alluded to the large amount of Jewish people in her constituency in connection with her nomination.

            “If this apparently hostile wording is inadvertent,”
            It was certainly not meant to be hostile in any way. That surprised me that you said that.

            “…take this as friendly notice to take more care.”
            I will, thank you.

            “Someone who (like me) doesn’t know you might well suspect you of deliberately planting comments with an antisemitic flavour, that could be used later to smear Labour Futures.”
            If my comments are perceived to have an ‘anti-Semitic flavour’ then yes I agree with your suspicions, though that is not my intention whilst participating in these comment sections. Can I assure you that there is no mischief on my part, I want to learn.
            I am a working class male who is a bricklayer with a basic education. Years ago I saw a film on the Palestinians and the conditions they lived under. One would have to be quite cold hearted not to feel a deep upset when witnessing the carnage and human suffering after one of the many Israeli military Operations into the Palestinian territory.
            I accept I have become insensitive to the Israeli explanations for their murders, maybe that has come through in some of my comments. I would have thought support for the victims of Israeli aggression would be the last thing on a Socialists mind, so I find it odd that so many commenters on here support Israel. The Zionists use the “anti-Semitic” card to close debate down, as many Jewish people will testify. I think a Mr Greenstein who sometimes writes here at Left Futures has mentioned this a number of times on his site.
            Ok I have listened and taken note of what you have said. Thank you for taking the time to let me know what you was thinking.

          7. Tim Wilkinson says:

            Rob Bab, as I say I don’t know you so can only go on what you type here – and of course that is what any antisemitism-obfuscating scumbags who decide to try and resurrect their smear campaign will use.

            My point wasn’t that mentioning the ‘Jewish vote’ is unacceptable, but using the term ‘Jew vote’ instead. It’s slightly hard to pin down an explanation from general prinnciples why this has an antisemitic ‘flavour’; I find the analogous use of ‘blacks’ instead of ‘black people’ a bit jarring but it doesn’t always seem to constitute, or indicate, racism.

            Maybe the dehumanising use of ‘illegals’ would in some ways be a closer analogy. Perhaps there’s even a symbolic resonance to of placing a label on people marked ‘Jew’ – but that’s getting a bit speculative.

            In any case, the fact is that substituting the noun ‘Jew’ for the adjective ‘Jewish’ is a typical way of expressing hostility to Jews in general.

            I think you’d probably find that Jewish people in general would agree with this (and I don’t mean just those who work for highly politicised witch-hunting organisations like the ADL, who give the lie to the idea that anyone who happens to be Jewish must be trusted to accurately diagnose antisemitism. Such an idea has obvious logical problems anyway, given the possibility of two Jewish people disagreeing over the matter).

            Anyway, all that is just by way of explaining my own comments as I certainly don’t relish the prospect of falsely smearing anyone as antisemitic. I think we’ve cleared that up in a pretty good natured way, so onward!

  25. David Pavett says:

    If Murphy argued against Rhea Wolfson’s nomination on the grounds of her support for Momentum and its alleged problems with anti-Semitism, which I can well believe, then it shows that for some on the right no tactics are beyond limits, however sscurrilous.The fact that the Eastwood CLP was persuaded by Murphy is symptomatic of the wider problems of Scottish Labour.

    However, none of this justifies the character assasination attempted above in which Murphy’s parents are brought into the frame. Dirty politics on the right are no excuse for the left to condemn a politician for things for which he was not responsible.

    Knowing that the Party rules are what they are I wonder if the somewhat shadowy group that selected Rhea W for the slate brought into their calculations the nature of the Eastwood CLP. Did they not know that Murphy has some clout there?

    It is all very well for people to say that the Eastwood CLP decision is an outrage but it was under no obligation to nominate Rhea just because she is a member of the Eastwood CLP. Most of us would vote against nomination of a member of our CLP if we opposed his/her political views.

    Does it make sense to talk of rallying against the Eastood decision when it is so clearly within the rules? Perhaps the rule should be changed but that is another argument for another time.

    The problems of the left slate this year have not been much of a model for left advance.

    1. Karl Stewart says:

      Ultra-wimpish comments like this sum up precisely why the left is getting repeatedly battered David.

      The Labour right is utterly ruthless and the left needs to be equally ruthless or it will continue to get battered.

      Murphy and this CLP are clearly guilty of anti-semitic discrimination in blocking the candidature of the only jewish candidate and they should clearly be booted out.

      Why on earth would anyone on the left defend what they’ve done?

      1. David Pavett says:

        @Karl Stewart

        1. The left gets repeatedly battered because too much left debate is at such a low level that all too many on the left think that calling someone “ultra-wimpish” is a meaningful political judgement.

        2. The answer to right-wing lack of principle is not to show an equal lack of principle.

        3. It is absurd to say that it is anti-Semitic to oppose the only Jewish candidate. Each candidate should be judged on his/her merits irrespective of ethnic or religious background.

        4. I did not defend what they did as I made perfectly clear in my first para. I merely pointed out that they acted within the rules.

        One of the big problems of the left is the lack of careful debate which leads to ill-considered responses like yours.

    2. Matty says:

      “Most of us would vote against nomination of a member of our CLP if we opposed his/her political views.”
      Not so, Oxford East CLP is clearly to the left but nominated Luke Akehurst to allow him on to the ballot. The same happened with Peter Wheeler in Salford.

      1. John Walsh says:

        … yes, good point. So, how to canvas opinion? Surely, this is a significant moment for Corbyn era factionalism. Do people support a change of tactics? I’m not sure that comments on here is democratic enough (only the shouty ones tend to comment). How about emailing all CLPD members with a simple yes/no question – do you support Pete Willsman’s proposal to organise a block on Akehurst’s home CLP NEC nomination? Any other thoughts, anyone?

        1. Tim Wilkinson says:

          This is an important point more generally – I hope Momentum is moving toward more meaningful involvement from the grass roots.

          1 Greater input both via polling and – importantly – more guided discussion of issues (rather than – to stylise – meetings with lots of speeches and a few disconnected random comments at the end if there’s time) is needed.

          Obviously this would be more democratic, but also has more immediate and tangible benefits.

          a. The Momentum membership is a valuable resource, with a wide range of skills and knowledge which need to be made use of. If ideas and offers of expertise can be filtered through to the co-ordinating centre, they can be very useful.

          b. People who are more involved and engaged in the organisation will be much more dedicated and more likely – and able – to recruit other members.

          2. More co-ordinated guidance and practical information.

          b. Momentum members should routinely be kept informed of things like the outcome of votes at Labour meetings ( I recently attended one and voted in accordance with the Momentum slate/’whip’ but only found out the outcome of the voting process by directly asking a Momentum co-ordinator. Neither the CLP nor Momentum issued what ought to have been a routine informational email to tell me. Again this is a matter both of general principle and also of improved engagement.

          Perhaps even more importantly, Momentum members need to be fully informed of policy, strategy and tactics.

          The obvious example is the instant case. The issue of who goes onto the various Labour Party committees is, as we know, of crucial importance if we’re to move beyond attritional war between the re-aligned Labour party and the diehard right-wingers at the top. This should be made clear and explained in regular email circulars.

          People need to understand in detail why it is urgently important to get people on the NEC, the CAC and the NPF. They would then mobilise with the same determination numbers and unity of purpose as they do for governmental elections.

          I think there is a place for a fairly static, authoritative informational website (this could perhaps be implemented as a closed wiki) which explains these things in detail, as well as providing detailed – practically relevant – information about wider political issues.

          In effect this could play the part that for the right is filled by semi-esoteric publications like the Spectator (or for the right & centre-right of the party, things like Labour List): providing the best ‘line’ on various issues, and a consistent & well-considered set of tools for use in rebuttal and advocacy.

          A suitably magisterial encyclopaedia-like collection of pages (which thanks to the internet can be built up incrementally and regularly updated) could be linked to by those proselytising on social media.

          Setting up websites and micro-think-tanks etc is a pretty low-cost buiness (especially if volunteers can be made good use of), considering the overall direct and indirect reach & influence that such projects can have.

          1. C MacMackin says:

            These are superb suggestions, crystallising some rather vague thoughts I’ve been having. I’d be more than willing to lend my IT skills to such a project, but this would of course require Momentum, or another, to get on board.

          2. Tim Wilkinson says:

            Yep, me too – bits & pieces of IT expertise (mainly data-modelling, relational databases, data analysis & presentation etc) along with research & analytical skills etc. & would love a way to get involved in furthering the Labour cause.

            There must be thousands of people in Momentum/Labour with relevant expertise and the willingness to commit an evening or two a week to a viable and worthwhile enterprise of this kind, who just (‘just’) need some co-ordination, tasking, deadlines and some kind of quality control (possibly eventually a “peoples’ peer review panel”).

            This kind of thing has the potential to become a huge source of free brain- and digit- labour (of the ‘…of love’ kind rather than the ‘exploitative extraction of surplus labour-product’ kind or whatever those who use that kind of schema would call it).

            Just as in the case of Momentum generally, I also think people would be happy to get started without demanding that everything be designed in happy-clappy strictly participatory-democratic fashion (provided there is a general direction of travel toward intra-party transparency and accountability).

            So what about it, @Jon Lansman? Are there any plans like this in the pipeline? Anyone with administrative and managerial skills who fancies directing such an effort? First thing to do is just to put out an appeal for CVs or info on skill set, time commitment etc., then start giving people tasks, including administrative, strategic & managerial ones & appoint them to provisional roles, see how it goes.

            Obviously it’ll take some organising and administration, but it may not be that hard to find people who fairly obviously can do a lot of that on a volunteer basis too. We have academics, managers, researchers, IT specialists and more – everything we need – all embodied in dedicated party members who may turn out to require little more than a catalyst and a viable-looking project (or set of projects) to organise themselves around.

            The Labour Party’s great strength is (we can now once again say) its mass membership – the Tories’ ersatz ‘party’ has the money to buy all this stuff in (including, as we’re discovering, people to hand out leaflets, as well as Twitter shills etc); we have the numbers to do it ourselves – and maybe thus to spawn autonomous entities which won’t even be part of the party’s expenses at election time etc.

          3. John Walsh says:

            Tim, this is what we’ve been hoping for from the off. We almost expected there would be these kinds of initiatives. From what I’ve come to realise though, such ideas are completely alien to the dominant conception of membership in the Party and especially in Momentum (from the top table down).

            For me, this will only happen if people like us try and get things off the ground – do you agree and any thoughts on how to move forward? (could we get in touch? – here’s some stuff I’ve done in the past and a link bottom right of every page – ‘developed by’ – for getting in touch http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/pesl/).

          4. Mervyn Hyde (@mjh0421) says:

            John, Momentum desperately needs expertise in communicating with local and national membership, so that local initiatives can be advanced through those channels.

            I respectfully suggest that you join your nearest local group and produce an application that can be extended into some form of intranet that allows contact and exchanges that will be accessible to any area of the country.

            As an example, we in Gloucestershire are mounting local debates to support the NHS Reinstatement Bill going through parliament, for obvious reasons this bill is likely to get voted down by all the united Neo-Liberal factions, it is therefore imperative that all local parties support the bill and make it party policy to implement it at the next Labour Government.

            We have a standard motion to conference that if adopted throughout the country could then become party policy. That could be better achieved if we had the right communication tool that would be available to all.

            Left Futures for example is limited to comments only and not a very effective campaigning tool.

          5. John Walsh says:

            Mervyn, your suggestion respectfully received. I seem to remember you’ve previously written on Left Futures some thoughtful comments about Momentum in Gloucestershire. My immediate thought is that you seem to be the people doing interesting things, why can’t I and others who want to be involved help you achieve what you want to do (membership crossing geographical boundaries in the interests of outcomes was one of the promises Tom Watson held out in his deputy leader election bid membership rhetoric). You, the people actually doing things on the ground, are the best people to be at the heart of designing and implementing communication tools that others could use. There’s an email address findable via the link on my last comment if you feel like exploring this further.

          6. David Pavett says:

            I have made similar proposals several times, in the columns of Left Futures and elsewhere, so I agree with you. You are right that there are considerable untapped resources for what you propose in the membership. So far it seems that no one is listening.

            Another example is not making use of good work done is such as the John McDonald economics road show. I offered to put all the materials together to make a booklet so that the main contributions made at the meetings could reach all those who are interested but could not get to the meetings/lectures. No response.

            If the left is to succeed it has to learn how to use supporters and activists for something more than turning up to meetings and demonstrations and voting (important though those things are).

          7. Tim Wilkinson says:

            *********************************
            *********************************

            @ C MacMackin,
            @ John Walsh,
            @ Mervyn Hyde,
            @ David Pavett,
            @ anyone else even vaguely interested in trying to get something along these lines organised:

            We obviously need to get together in a more organised fashion, start getting more people on board, thrash out some kind of big picture to provide a direction of travel & future-compatibility, and get started on some small but extensible initiatives.

            Something like a Facebook page might be a start, or I could just set up a blog and we can communicate via comment threads.

            Anyway let’s get in touch – if anyone is on Twitter, Tweet me @SurelySmMistake & we can take it from there. Or just reply here to start with.

            *********************************
            *********************************

          8. John Walsh says:

            Yes, please count me in. Could I suggest a blog, maybe with ‘purpose’ threads – one for trying to work out what we want to do, one for how to communicate this to others, etc. Only a suggestion – very open to working the way others want to work. Maybe we could call it ‘Campaign for Labour Party Members’ CLPM (not sure about the last word – although a bit cheeky, something that is a play on ‘CLPD’ might help to attract others?).

          9. Mervyn Hyde (@mjh0421) says:

            I responded by tweet, but confirm I am also in, We need to pick the most prominent policies and create a public debate within the Party.

            Top of the list the NHS (reinstatement Bill)

            How do we pay for our public services, “Money creation”. The difference between the Banks printing money out of thin air every time they make a loan, and Jeremy’s peoples QE.

            The economy and Neo-Liberalism, and how capitalism has held back development not enhanced it. Why the private sector is doomed to failure.

            That will do as a start, but it is these key issues we need to get into the public domain.

            The Tories started their Neo-Liberal onslaught in the 1970s, talking about the nationalised industries and especially rail as the great white elephants.

            We have history behind us to prove just how important those industries were to the economy and why they need to be taken back into public ownership, if we don’t it will mean more chaos and expensive services.

          10. C MacMackin says:

            I’d definitely be interested in being involved with this, at least in terms of the IT stuff. I don’t know how much I’d be able to bring in terms of detailed policy discussion, beyond broad suggestions. Unfortunately, the next month or two are going to be quite busy with studies and then travelling, plus dealing with some software I maintain in my spare time. I would definitely like to be included in discussions but can’t guarantee how much I’ll have time to contribute. I don’t tweet, but you can find my email address on my personal blog (which, sadly, hasn’t been posted to in a while).

            http://politicalphysicist.github.io/

          11. Mervyn Hyde (@mjh0421) says:

            Essentially, please stay on board,see how things develop and apply any computer ideas that would enhance our objectives.

            Fundamentally I believe we need some sort of intranet network, but personally don’t have clue about how to achieve it or whether it wold be possible.

          12. Tim Wilkinson says:

            I’ll be setting up a basic site http://strategy.labourroots.uk/ to get things started with some discussion threads. I’ll be in touch with those who’ve expressed an interest to let them know when it’s ready for use, which will be no later than the end of this weekend.

        2. David Pavett says:

          The sort of democratic involvement you propose certainly goes beyond current practice on the left. I understand from a friend who is a member of the CLPD that no one canvassed his opinion as a CLPD member as to who should go on the slate. The issue of appropriate democratic practice on the left is something requiring serious attention. We have not yet put the era of decisions made in smoke-filled rooms behind us (even there is less smoke these days).

          1. Peter Willsman says:

            David,as I have said several times already,the CLPD AGM laid down years ago that the slate proposals are drawn by the EC(open to all members).If your friend is unhappy with this ask them to bring a motion to the AGM.Why do you persist in making these cheap jibes?Is that how you behaved all those years in the CP?-until it folded when the Moscow Gold stopped coming.

      2. David Pavett says:

        @Matty. I admire the generous spirit but

        1. I believe that it remains true that most on the left would not do this.

        2. By supporting Akehurst you had to exclude someone from the left slate. Personally, I would not have done that and I think that most on the left would not do so.

        1. Nestor says:

          David, as Oxford CLP was his home constituency party, they almost certainly felt it would be mean spirited and obstructionist not to nominate him, as it would mean that he couldn’t stand at all. Whilst I deplore Akehurst, I would see this as anti-democratic, as members should at least have the option to vote for him.

          This is the central reason why the actions of Eastwood CLP are seen as remarkably shoddy.

          1. John Penney says:

            Nestor, if the Left continue to behave like naïve , debating society, amateurs , in supporting the candidature of a mortal enemy of the Left like Akehurst “because it “would be remarkably shoddy” not to do so, we are going to be trampled into the dust by a Labour Right that has proved throughout the Labour Party’s chequered history to be utterly lacking in any scruples at all in maintaining the dominance of Right wing politics in the Party – and hence their endless opportunities for personal enrichment.

            You need to get real, Nestor – politics is an activity for grown ups – with a lot of real people killed and hurt and impoverished if we allow our vital radical Left agenda to be destroyed by the machinations of the neoliberal Labour Right. Time to toughen up comrade.

          2. Bazza says:

            If I was a member of Oxford CLP I would vote against Nuke Luke.
            Do unto others as they would do unto you.

          3. Bazza says:

            Actually as working class youth we use to say: do unto others as they would do unto you – but do it first!
            Kick off Luke the Nuke!
            These right wing people hold back progressive change and better lives for working class people/working people/the poor not just here but internationally!
            Rise up with me against the organisation of misery!

          4. Nestor says:

            John, I would personally find it impossible to vote for Akehurst in any capacity, and would seriously consider moving if the potato-headed eejit was a regular fixture at my CLP.

            That said, we need to understand the likely motivation for his CLP to nominate him. In addition, as most CLPs nominate 6 candidates for NEC, it may be the case that very little could be done to keep him off the list even if opposed by the left, as long as there was a small core of right wingers prepared to vote for him.

            I’m all for going to the mattresses on this issue, but we have to be tactical about it. Whilst the right’s wrecker tactics will be indulged and even encouraged by the media and the PLP, anything that smacks of similar tactics from the left will be seized on and tarred with the Militant brush (which is ironic, considering the right are acting like textbook Troskyites this time around).

            Yes, politics is an activity for grown ups, but proper grown-ups don’t act like the Progress wankers are doing here. This is adolescent, gutter politics more suited to the Student Union.

            If the left merely ape these tactics we are not going to be fighting on a level playing field. We certainly need to take the fight to them, but we need to be much more sophisticated than they are, otherwise the entire party will go into a nihilistic death-spiral.

  26. Peter Rowlands says:

    Yes, Murphy’s actions and their consequences were absolutely disgraceful, but the problem is that unless it can be quickly proved that the CLP procedures were invalid so that the nomination process can be rerun there is an obvious problem which only David Pavett and Peter Willsman have faced up to. To call David’s comments ‘ultra wimpish’ is typical of the mindlessness of some of the left.

    1. Karl Stewart says:

      I think it’s fair comment.

      A young left-wing woman has been bullied out of a candidacy by the hard-right and we should defend her.

      It’s feeble to respond to this bullying by trying to make excuses for the bullies.

      1. David Pavett says:

        @Karl Stewart. What “excuses” have I made for the bullies?

        Accusations like that should always be supported by evidence.

        Or is it enough to accuse and to get others to agree with you – a process we hotly contest when it comes from the right.

        1. Karl Stewart says:

          You’ve made excuses for the hard-right, racist bullies who have blocked Rhea’s nomination on anti-Semitic grounds David.

          According to you, they’ve acted within the rules and behaved correctly.

          1. David Pavett says:

            I said that they acted within the rules by not supporting her nomination. That is a fact not as an excuse.

            I did not say that they behaved correctly. I said the opposite.

            People who throw accusations like this around on no grounds whatsoever drag left-wing politics down to a level which can never enable a successful movement to emerge.

          2. Karl Stewart says:

            Reply to David Pavett:

            I’m surprised that you think Murphy forcing her to leave the meeting and then making anti-semitic comments to the meeting behind her back is ‘within the rules’.

            It seems to me you expect the left to play by ‘Queensbury Rules’ while the right can do whatever they like.

          3. Rob Bab says:

            @Karl
            David is correct. His comments have been balanced, measured and mature.
            Karl you keep mentioning this “anti-Semitic” thing. Anti-Semitism means “Jew hatred”, please point out where anybody said anything that was Jew hatred – by the CLP, Murphy or Wolfson.

          4. C MacMackin says:

            Agreed, David is correct here. There is no reason to think that this action was anti-Semitic. I think it is fair to say that Jim Murphy is a slimeball and the fact that he blocked the only Jewish candidate shows that he doesn’t care much about antisemitism (or lack thereof) so much as having a club to beat the left with, but that just shows he is an unprincipled opportunist. Someone can be vile without being antisemitic.

          5. Tim Wilkinson says:

            It’s clear enough that this wasn’t an antisemitic action in the sense of Wolfson’s being excluded because she is Jewish – it was because she is on the left.

            However, people like Murphy, Guido Fawkes, Murdoch, Streeting etc. etc., by unscrupulously alleging antisemitism on no, false, spurious or – at most, even in the strongest one or two individual & marginal cases – tenuous grounds, do create a climate in which accusations of antisemitism are easier than ever to dismiss, even when accurate (the ADL etc started this process a long while back, of course).

            http://twitter.com/SurelySmMistake/status/707651174363697153

            https://twitter.com/SurelySmMistake/status/718074430577094656

            So the orchestrated smear campaign, on which Murphy’s intervention is based, is ‘objectively antisemitic’, to coin a phrase (or maybe anti-anti-antisemitic – so do we remove a pair of cancelling ‘anti’s, in ‘my enemy’s enemy’ fashion?).

          6. Karl Stewart says:

            Reply to Rob, CMak, and Tim,

            According to the report above, Rhea was forced to leave the meeting while her nomination was discussed, then Murphy made anti-Semitic comments about her behind her back, and urged the Eastwood members to block her candidacy, which they then did.

            Again, according to the report above, Rhea was the only jewish candidate in the NEC list of candidates.

            So, if the report is true, then we have the only jewish candidate being blocked on the basis of anti-Semitic remarks being made behind her back after she was forced to leave the meeting.

            How is that not anti-Semitic and racist?

          7. Tim Wilkinson says:

            “Murphy made anti-Semitic comments about her” well obviously this makes all the difference. If he did then that was anti-semitic; if not (and I’m not sure what you are basing that claim on), it doesn’t appear to have been.

            In which case trying to turn the tables in this neat way isn’t viable, on pragmatic grounds quite apart from anything else: we don’t have the media onside (unfortunately) nor (less unfortunately perhaps) a claque of unscrupulous, er – shall we say ‘Alans’, after Rik Mayall’s character in The New Statesman? – willing relentlessly to prosecute an unfounded smear campaign.

          8. Rob Bab says:

            @Karl
            “According to the report above,”
            Yes exactly, it’s Rhea’s report and nobody else’s. That’s not good enough when accusations are made of irregularities and counts of anti-Semitism. Did you read my comment above where I laid out 3 proofs she could have used to have a credible case? Otherwise it’s her word against theirs.

            “…then Murphy made anti-Semitic comments about her behind her back,”
            The burden of proof is on you Karl, and Rhea for that matter, to provide the evidence for that accusation.

            “Again, according to the report above, Rhea was the only jewish candidate in the NEC list of candidates.”
            We’ve still got that “according to” hump to get over and it ain’t gettin’ any lower. So what if Rhea is Jewish. The onus is on you to explain why that is relevant.

            “So, if the report is true,”
            Yes and there we have it. Now you need to establish that “fact”

            “…on the basis of anti-Semitic remarks being made behind her back…”
            What anti-Semitic remarks? Write out what anti-Semitic remarks were made.

            “How is that not anti-Semitic and racist?”
            1. Were anti-Semitic remarks made? Evidence please.
            2. Was she blocked because of anti-Semitic remarks? Evidence please.

            Karl, if you answer my questions in full then we can move forward and get behind Rhea’s claims. Make your case with reasoned thought, with evidence and without prejudice.
            Or perhaps Rhea good step forth, so’s to get to the bottom of this. Her presence would be welcomed.

          9. Rob Bab says:

            “Or perhaps Rhea could step forth,”

          10. Tim Wilkinson says:

            Rob Bab

            “Karl, if you answer my questions in full then we can move forward and get behind Rhea’s claims…perhaps Rhea could step forth” etc

            Wolfson – whose account I have no particular reason to doubt, and am inclined to trust, though it is presumably second hand – doesn’t claim that Murphy made antisemitic remarks. That is Karl’s claim and does not reflect on her.

          11. Rob Bab says:

            @Tim
            “That is Karl’s claim and does not reflect on her.”
            Exactly! I’m wanting Karl to disentangle himself from the anti-Semitism web that he is entangled in, by attempting to produce evidence for his claims rather than imagined hear-say. In the process he may realise that in Rhea’s account, she made no claims of anti-Semitism being used against her.
            Though having said that I think it is possible to come to the conclusion that Rhea was alluding to being a victim of anti-Semitism, depending on how one interprets her words;

            “It is disappointing because I am the only Jewish candidate in this election… and because I have a long record of challenging antisemitism and have in fact faced it on a daily basis since my candidacy was announced.”

            Is it possible to read the above as a reference to Jim Murphy? I think that’s what Karl has possibly done. That is why no evidence of any anti-Semitism has been forthcoming. If Rhea was to drop by or do a follow up piece and clearly state either way what her truth was, then that would hopefully put an end to the speculating.

          12. Karl Stewart says:

            Reply to Rob (12.10) and Tim (11.16):

            I wasn’t there and the sum total of my knowledge is based on the report above.

            Yes I agree there should be an investigation. Labour should suspend Murphy and Eastwood CLP and investigate this thoroughly.

            In the meantime, Rhea should be formally accepted as an NEC candidate.

  27. Peter Rowlands says:

    A possible solution is apparently being explored. See Labour List, Conor Pope, ‘Momentum candidate ….’ yesterday.

    1. Steve says:

      we need backups in case rhea doesnt make it.

      possible nomination in other constitency doesnt cover us if it fails due to time or other reason.

      Steven.

    2. David Pavett says:

      The second solution is a fudge (which doesn’t rule it out – sometimes fudges are the only sensible option) because it is based on exactly the same rule as the one by which Rhea was excluded but on considering her to be a member of another constituency where she also “spends time”. I hope it works but I can see objections of all sorts – starting with that other constituency where at the time of writing the above article no nominations had yet been made.

      I hope that everyone has understood that next time round a left slate must be the result of an open process involving large numbers of left-wing members.

  28. Bazza says:

    Yes David next year we need to put grassroots,left wing, bottom up, democratic, participatory power into practice.
    But for now we need to beat the right wing Labour top downers – those who would police and who think they know what’s best for the working class/working people – the self proclaimed great men and women of history.

  29. David Pavett says:

    @Karl Stewart, June 3, 2016 at 6:55 am.

    I don’t approve of the excluding Rhea W from the discussion about her nomination. I am not at all clear that it broke any rule though especially since CLPs can vary the rules if this is approved by the NEC. It is also a secondary point since it is My point has been simply that, as far as I can tell, no rules were broken and if that is the case the ability of any campaign to reverse the decision is likely to be zero. Getting hot under the collar and shouty is no substitute for proper planning and that seems not to have taken place in the case of Rhea W’s nomination.

    1. prianikoff says:

      I’m appalled by the factional and undemocratic way that Rhea Wolfson was parachuted onto the NEC election slate, after the undemocratic removal of Ken Livingstone from the contest.

      Everyone knows what an unprincipled careerist Murphy is.
      So it’s not surprising that he and his dwindling band of cronies in Renfrewshire East CLP are prepared to use every trick in the book to revive his stalled political career.

      But Labour First/Progress and their backers outside the Labour Party are prepared to sacrifice a pawn in hopeless position (i.e. Murphy) to win their bigger game, which is the removal of Jeremy Corbyn from the Labour leadership.

      Unfortunately, Momentum has tried to fight the Inquisition by picking and choosing who they’re prepared to defend.

      It won’t work.

    2. peter willsman says:

      David,you must come out of your ivory tower into the real LP world.Ken L was suspended midway through the process and we had to find a sub very urgently.Rhea was the best candidate put forward.We asked CfS to take soundings in Eastwood which they did at once.They felt that on balance it would be OK and in the circs that was the best opinion possible.We are not in an ivory tower we are in a war with the Right which has been waged for decades.They have upped the battle because they want control of the NEC so JC will be at their mercy.In wars/battles things don’t go easy.We had temporarily lost sight of the fact that the Right are ruthless,vicious bastards(apols to JPR)

      1. David Pavett says:

        Peter, there comes a point in discussion when you feel that it is a helpful contribution to discussion to accuse people who disagree of “ivory tower” politics. Such attacks on the person rather than what they say reflect a level of debate that is so low as to be a real threat to effectively combatting the right.

        You may have “temporarily lost sight of the fact that the Right are ruthless …” but please don’t include the rest of us in that.

        Like many others I am convinced that if the left is to succeed it has to be more open and democratic and has to do serious policy work in all the key areas. On the latter point this has been a particularly barren year in terms of responses to discussion papers for the NPF’s policy work for annual conference. You may consider such concerns to be those of the “ivory tower”. If so then please try to understand why it is that many of us believe that if the left does not do better than this then this historic opportunity provided by Jeremy Corbyn’s election will be wasted.

        1. peter willsman says:

          David,it is only you that I link to an ivory tower.This is because you often make magisterial pronouncements, seemingly without taking account of the situation on the ground.We have been working for some 20 years to get good comrades onto the NPF.Only in the last 2 years have we started to make significant progress,but we are a long way from a majority.The policies that the NPF produces are likely to reflect the balance of votes.You can produce a huge compendium of splendid policies,but without enough supporters at the NPF they are unlikely to get very far I am afraid.

          1. David Pavett says:

            Peter, you say “You can produce a huge compendium of splendid policies,but without enough supporters at the NPF they are unlikely to get very far I am afraid.” This makes me wonder just how out of touch it is possible to be. The likelihood of such a huge compendium is exactly zero. The problem is that virtually no organised effort has gone into the NPF policy cycle this year. Not only that but the tiny group of people who decided the left slate are stuck in a mode of working that does not site well with the call for more open politics. (You should have noticed on Left Futures that I am not the only one saying these things.) Call that a “magisterial pronouncement” if you will but that and the “ivory towers” stuff is just low level abuse that gets in the way of proper discussion.

          2. John Walsh says:

            PW, you have 50+ years experience, you are the only person to have served on all four of the Party’s national committees, you work 70 hours a week, you understand through experience the challenge the right poses – who can compete with your CV?, who has a better understanding of long-haul political change?

            On your own terms you are untouchable. The question, though, is about your conception of membership, your model of activism. This is the issue a number of us on this website keep coming back to – among the 200,000 are many, many members with the skills and the wherewithal to contribute, to completely change the way the Party operates, so that we don’t need long-haul change, it would happen quickly.

            But it’s not going to happen unless the current model of activism is allowed to be considered.

            One example (among the tens and tens that members are writing in these comments pages) is the amateurish way that Corbyn’s staff operate, as shown in the vice.com video. One inexperienced bloke is responsible for advising JC on what he wears, at a pre-PMQs rehearsals meeting Andrew Fischer reluctantly plays Cameron. Is this really how Corbyn’s office operates? – yes, it looks amateurish at PMQ and it really is in the background.

            But it doesn’t have to be like this – we here ready and willing to contribute and will continue to put this case here and elsewhere. Cue PW thinking ‘get out on the street door-knocking, that’s what I did and so should you’ – or maybe not, perhaps we can get to the point where we can actually have a conversation about, for example, what constitutes significant political acts in our neo-liberal age?

        2. peter willsman says:

          John,I appreciate the point you are making.Perhaps you could do a short paper for our EC , I will put it as an early agenda item, you can come along and we can talk it through.If appropriate it can then go to the AGM
          David,as I have said before,I don’t see ‘ivory tower’,as abuse.To me it describes a situation where people make statements without taking account of the political etc situation.You say there are likely to be a dearth of good policies.In fact John McD and his army of economist mates are up and down the country working out a raft of policies, it’s the same with Defend Housing,with Labour’s NHS campaigns etc etc.The seven Policy Comms get a load of good submissions.On the Economic PC I get about 2 or 3 submissions a day and many are excellent.But at the end of the day the problem won’t be policies,the problem will be political will and votes.Look at the report of the final session of the 2014 NPF:CLPD EC member, George McManus,put a proposal that our Party should have an anti austerity agenda.George got the merest handful of votes.

          1. John Walsh says:

            Thank you Peter. Invitation appreciated – it’ll be up to 2 weeks before I get something to you as (in the spirit of openness) I’ll first circulate it locally to new members for comment.

          2. Matty says:

            I am not wholly in the loop nowadays but it does seem that John McDonnell is making excellent progress on economic policy. George McManus is a very good left rep on the NPF who is doing a lot of work on defence in particular. I would imagine that he would be happy to be contacted if you want to make suggestions.

  30. Karl Stewart says:

    While of course it’s true that the right is attacking the left and is seeking any pretext it can to suspend and boot out left-wingers, it’s also important to recognise that there are several aspects and layers to this attack.

    In my opinion, part of this general assault on the left by the right, part of it, is a concerted attack by the right on jewish socialists and on jewish left-wingers.

    Rhea was blocked, yes because she’s on the left, but also because she’s a jewish socialist.

    And she’s not the only jewish socialist victim of the right’s purge.

    On the left, many are inspired by the writings and the ideas of a 19th-century German jew, many others are inspired by the life of an early 20th-century Ukrainian jew. There’s an enormous contribution – whether or not one calls oneself either a marxist or a trotskyist or agrees with these philosophies, they are extremely influential ideas on the left.

    And it is this aspect of jewish culture that the right is attacking here, as part of its general assault on the left.

    Murphy is reported as having blocked Rhea’s candidature – the only jewish candidate – on the grounds that she’s supported by a Labour left organisation chaired by a jewish man and vice-chaired by the daughter of a jewish refugee.

    The revolting Murphy and his moronic acolytes in Eastwood CLP, whether conciously or not, have taken a profoundly racist decision and should be booted out.

    1. Karl Stewart says:

      Sorry Murphy apologists on here, if I can re-phrase more accurately.

      Murphy is reported as having blocked Rhea’s candidature – who coincidentally just happens to be the only jewish candidate – on the grounds that she’s supported by a Labour left organisation that coincidentally just happens to be chaired by a jewish man and which coincidentally just happens to be vice-chaired by the daughter of a jewish refugee.

      All these ‘coincidences’ eh? Like when some occupations ‘coincidentally’ employed no black people, or some venues ‘coincidentally’ only permitted white people to enter.

      ‘Coincidences’ eh?

      1. prianikoff says:

        Just to remind people of Murphy’s unprincipled manouvering in the past;

        In 1996, when he was President of NUS, he suspended Clive Lewis, now the MP for Norwich South and a close ally of Jeremy Corbyn.

        Ken Livingstone sponsored this early day motion against him:-

        MR JIM MURPHY AND THE NATIONAL UNION OF STUDENTS

        Session: 1995-96
        Date tabled: 12.06.1996
        Primary sponsor: Livingstone, Ken
        Sponsors:

        “That this House condemns the intolerant and dictatorial behaviour of the President of the National Union of Students, Mr Jim Murphy, who has unconstitutionally suspended NUS Vice President, Clive Lewis, because he took part, in a personal capacity, in an open debate at Queen Mary and Westfield College on the issues raised by the Campaign for Free Education; further notes that along with President Elect, Douglas Trainer, both men have warned NUS Executive member, Rose Woods, that if she attends the Scottish launch of the Campaign for Free Education she too will be suspended from the NUS Executive; reminds Mr Murphy and Mr Trainer that freedom of speech is a right in the United Kingdom, that they have no power to overturn the results of elections that went against their preferred candidates and that, whilst these methods are a common practice in dictatorships around the world, they are not acceptable behaviour from someone such as Mr Murphy who is putting himself forward as suitable for election to the House of Commons.”

    2. Tim Wilkinson says:

      Karl, I think this line of argument does have merit, but I think it is subsidiary to the main point which is that this was a NuLab stitch-up.

      There is indeed something rather racist (or what do we say, ethnocentric?) about the way Likudnik types* target Jewish opponents of Israeli policy.

      {{*While I think JL’s piece on the term ‘Zionist’ misfired, being unnecessarily censorious and not really proposing a usable term to encompass the coalition of Likudniks, neo-cons, eschatologicists, Islamophobes and assorted other nutjobs who defend Israel’s excesses. But I would say Zionisms are a distinguishable & more abstract issue, and not the main one – rather like the Monarchy, we may be opposed in principle but the Labour party’s position since Lansbury has been to say the game is not worth the candle and we should concentrate our efforts on more immediate concerns.}}

      There’s all the stuff about ‘self-hating Jews’ (Dershowitz v Finkelstein is a good illustration of the disingenuous use of this kind of rhetoric): among opponents of Israel, Jews are singled out (in the US/UK anyway) for attack as traitors or apostates, and there may well be an aspect of this here – since the casual observer might othewise thank that ‘well she is actually Jewish herself’ might provide an adequate counterweight to the usual degrees-of-separation innuendo about association with supposed antisemites.

      Another aspect which I mentioned somewhere above is that the willingness of these people to fabricate antisemitism charges for transparently partisan purposes betrays a flippant attitude to actual antisemitism and provides comfort and cover to real antisemites.

      But I think we have to maintain focus on the root issue here, which is that the organising principle of all this is the struggle between NuLab and the resurgent Labour grassroots.

      The subsidiary points can be made, but they are a bit too subtle & complex for use as soundbites: they aren’t & can’t be made the main issue and we’re not in position to oversell them. We simply don’t have the power (primarily in terms of co-operation from the Tories** and the media) to steamroller through our chosen narrative, and on the contrary any exaggerated or misplaced claims we make are likely to be used as part of the ‘Conspiracy Theorist’/#deluded/extremist line of attack.

      {{**Funny isn’t it how all the bravado about Conservatives rubbing the hands with glee at the prospect of ‘unelectable’ Corbyn as Labour leader isn’t backed up by their actions. Almost as if it were some kind of bluff.}}

      Even if you think I’m wrong here, the question is, is it worth scrapping amongst ourselves over? In the context of the fight against the NuLab old guard, that issue doesn’t arise as they represent an alien ideology & have proved their intransigence again and again – there can be no compromise with the implacable, only one-sided concessions (and anyway compromise of the kind they demand would be destructive of our whole strategy: https://twitter.com/SurelySmMistake/status/686619713464614912 ).

      In that arena (and obviously where fighting the Tories directly is concerned) there needs to be a definite toughening up & an end to creeping appeasement under the ‘fair and balanced’ banner.

      But while it’s encouraging to see that much-needed tough-mindedness in action, defending the specific claim ‘this was an antisemitic attack’ doesn’t seem to me the most useful application of it.

      1. Karl Stewart says:

        Some excellent points Tim. There certainly does need to be some toughening up on the left and an end to the appeasement.

        The right is utterly ruthless and if the best the left can do in response is the kind of passive, ‘let’s keep to the rules of cricket’ attitude best expressed on here by David Pavett, then we’re going to continue to get smashed.

        There is also an important political struggle that needs to be waged to celebrate the enormous jewish contribution to left-wing, socialist ideas, history, and culture. Out of all proportion to numbers.

        A big part, it is a part and certainly not the whole, but still a significant part, of the whole right-wing attack is a concerted attack on the jewish left in particular.

        It appears to me that the right’s underlying message here is one of ‘how dare these jews be on the left’ ‘how dare they be critical of the Israeli government’ and ‘how dare they critique capitalism’.

        It’s as if the right-wing somehow is projecting the view that they are ‘the wrong sort of jew’.

        And it is this that really infuriates me about this report into the actions of Murphy and his sycophants in Eastwood CLP.

        The report gives me the impression of an ignorant group of people projecting all of these attitudes.

  31. John P Reid. says:

    What will the group labour together make of this hatred and name calling by CLPD, and will, Pete Wilsman apologies for losing labour a landslide in 2020 or do a hard left view like they did in 1983 and blame everyone else

  32. Peter Rowlands says:

    Karl Stewart.
    Your argument goes like this;Rhea Wolfson is Jewish.She was discriminated against.This act was therefore anti semitic. You do not seem to understand why this is logically flawed.
    But the serious point, which no-one else other than those (Pavett and Willsman) I previously mentioned when I raised this three days ago, is how this is to be resolved. The clock is ticking.I hope we have a full CLGA slate on June 24th.I assume that some people are actively pursuing this.

    1. Karl Stewart says:

      In my previous post, I did say that some people explain away discrimination on the basis of ‘coincidence’.

      1. David Pavett says:

        Karl, that is a ridiculous response. An accusation of racism is a very serious thing, or rather it should be, and should be based on good grounds. Failure to accept this trivialises anti-racism. If your response had any value it would mean that any disagreement with someone from an ethnic minority can always be said to be racist and that to think otherwise would be to “explain away” racism on the basis of coincidence. Down this path to evidence-free accusations of racism lies the destruction of reason.

        I could understand a twelve year-old starting to think about such problems for the first time making this mistake. Beyond that it shows a very worrying inclination to waive any requirement for evidence. I hope I am never up before a judge and jury that reasons in this way.

        1. Karl Stewart says:

          You don’t see a problem with putting the jewish person out of the meeting and then telling the meeting behind her back that it’s better for the jewish people of the constituency that she isn’t nominated?

          1. David Pavett says:

            Whether or not it was proper to exclude her from the discussion is one thing (in my view it was wrong). But whether she was excluded on account of her Jewish origins is quite another matter. No evidence has been offered that this was the case. Nor has any evidence been provided that Jim Murphy said anything anti-Semitic.

            You earlier said that your knowledge of the Eastwood meeting was limited to what Rhea W says in her report. Yet you have repeatedly made claims which go well beyond that report including repeated charges of anti-Semitism. This is highly irresponsible and damaging to the cause of anti-racism. I wish you would stop and think about what you are doing.

          2. Karl Stewart says:

            Reply to David Pavett (6.31):

            I know absolutely nothing about this whole matter other than what’s stated in the report above.

            It certainly appears to me that, from that report, there’s far, far more evidence of anti-Semitism by Murphy and his Eastwood supporters than there ever was against Jackie Walker.

            There’s certainly a case for Murphy’s and Eastwood CLP’s suspension pending a full investigation.

            But it seems to me that the most important issue here for you is supporting Jim Murphy.

          3. David Pavett says:

            @Karl Stewart, June 6, 2016 at 7:20 pm.

            You think that when your claims are challenged all you need to do is to keep repeating them.

            You also think that opposing unfounded charges against Jim Murphy is to support his views.

            I rarely use words like this but these responses are idiotic. I’m done with this nonsense.

          4. John Penney says:

            I ‘m amazed at the truly “Alice through the Looking Glass” use of the term “anti semitism” by numerous posters here, in relation to the slimey Blairite Murphy’s ruse to block Rhea. As David Pavett has correctly said many times , Murphy was slandering and associating Rhea with anti semitism, but whatever Karl and others wish to believe, this unprincipled slander by Murphy is not itself “anti semitism” – it is just slander by a Blairite of a Left Winger.

            That you can’t grasp this ,Karl, or choose to throw the specious charge of “anti semitism” around with the same lack of care as the Blairites, displays a serious lack of political judgement. Murphy is a slanderous Blairite operator, but not an anti semite in anything he has said. Proposing the poisonous historical lie that, “The chief funders of the slave and sugar trades were Jewish financiers” , is however to propagate and support an antisemitic libel. See the difference ? I thought not. That’s the problem with the “Humpty Dumpty” approach to language and meaning. Words don’t just mean what you want them to mean at any point in time.

    2. peter willsman says:

      Peter,CLPD is on the case,we have all options covered.

      1. Karl Stewart says:

        Reply to John Penney 11.03:

        Yes there’s an enormous difference between a private discussion between three socialist friends, in which one of them is developing a lengthy and detailed viewpoint based on her own research into her mixed African/American/jewish cultural identity and a repulsive red tory blocking the candidature of an excellent young jewish socialist.

        The difference between you and I though, appears to be that you have no problem with the repulsive red tory, but you do seem to be offended by what the right-wing media have told you about the private conversation the three socialist friends had.

  33. Peter Rowlands says:

    Re above, should say ‘has raised’ after ‘else’.

  34. Paul Dias says:

    The Blairites are at it again. Absolutely disgraceful. Keep fighting the good fight, Rhea.

  35. David Pavett says:

    We have been told that the situation in the Eastwood CLP had been well researched before Rhea W stood for nomination. It would be instructive to know what went wrong. Was it poor quality information, some unpredictable factor, a fluke? What exactly? Was the vote against her carried with a large majority or was it a close run thing?

    It would be useful if Rhea W contributed to this discussion to answer some of the points an to fill out the details of her short account above.

    News today is that Rhea W is transferring her membership to another CLP where she also has an address in order to seek nomination again.

  36. peter willsman says:

    David,CLPD knew Rhea was a brill sub for KL(sev.CLPD members, who know Rhea, attested to this)CLPD therefore recommended Rhea to CLGA and after discussions all Groups agreed to Rhea.CLPD also asked CfS to check re Eastwood,which they did, and the consensus was that things would be OK.Murphy had not been seen for almost a year.Then the door opened and he came in with a gang of mates.I am satisfied that it was an ambush planned by the Right to disrupt our slate.We are in a battle for the future of our Party.In battles things rarely go smoothly.That is the nature of battles.As I say above,CLPD now has all options covered.Like Montgomery at El A.

    1. James Barrowman says:

      As someone who used to live in Eastwood, all I can say is that CfS must have done a pretty poor job of it. Jeremy received no votes at the CLP’s nomination meeting, and members regularly expressed unhappiness with his leadership from the floor of meetings. Even leaving Jim out of it, nobody with a passing knowledge of the constituency’s politics could really have thought that a nomination for a CLGA-backed candidate was likely, particularly one who (whether understandably or not in the circumstances) was largely unknown in the CLP. If anybody-Ms Wolfson, CfS, CLPD, whoever-had sounded out the CLP office bearers (and I can categorically tell you that they did not), that’s the advice they would have received. Ms Wolfson could then have quietly changed constituency, picked up her nomination without trashing an active and hard working CLP, and everybody would been much happier all round. Hopefully, lessons will be learned for the future.

  37. David Pavett says:

    Peter, thanks for the explanation. Agreed that battles can’t all be predictable. So Murphy’s presence was a surprise. Were he and his mates all GC delegates?

    My other point was that people standing for NEC should have earned their spurs in a way that makes it possible to know something about their views. So Rhea W may be a “bril sub” as you say but how would the rest of us know?

    I am glad if the CLPD has all options covered but I hope that in future the possibility of a more open process will be fully explored across the left.

    1. peter willsman says:

      David,in Scotland all such meetings are All Members Meetings.Rhea has written loads of stuff(much available via internet) but,at end of day,I have found that personal recs from those you know and trust are the best.I hope you will come to CLPD AGM, where we can all have an informed debate.

      1. David Pavett says:

        Peter, thanks for pointing out the difference in the nature of the meetings. Worth knowing.

        You say “Rhea has written loads of stuff (much available via internet)”. I’ve looked and can’t find this material. I should be very grateful if you would supply some links.

        I don’t see how “personal recs from those you know and trust are the best” can be an appropriate approach for national politics. That only works when things are decided by small cliques. That’s something we should be trying to put behind us.

  38. peter willsman says:

    David,I have seen enough on Google etc to convince me Rhea is the bees knees.If you want more, contact Rhea on Facebook/Twitter or ask her Leftie Group,CfS.I have always found that the most reliable way in our Party is to be guided by advice from excellent comrades.Thankfully,in CLPD we have a lot of these. PW.

    1. David Pavett says:

      Peter, no links or references to the “loads of stuff (much available on the Internet)” then.

      Pity, I’ve looked and could only find crumbs.

      1. Peter Willsman says:

        As we know,Rhea was nominated unanimously in her new CLP.We will now make the Right pay for what they did.The attack on Rhea has woken comrades up.Rhea will now do much better than she otherwise would have.Also,the whole Slate is benefiting-many more CLPs have nominated the whole Slate than ever before.We are starting to rock and roll!!! Thanks to all comrades.But don’t let up,there is still 8 days to go.

        1. David Pavett says:

          Good that the slate has growing backing and good that Rhea W got nominated but I don’t see how this is a response to anything that I wrote.

          1. peter willsman says:

            David,you should have noticed by now that when I respond to you,I start ‘David’.I just wanted to make a general point that related to Rhea’s piece.For info.,today CLPD EC spent a lot of time discussing the attack on Soc.Appeal and AWL.We would like to hear from any CLP that could submit a rule change by 24th.

        2. Karl Stewart says:

          That’s great news Peter, well done to all those responsible and let’s hope she gets elected.

© 2017 Left Futures | Powered by WordPress | theme originated from PrimePress by Ravi Varma