Latest post on Left Futures

Shining a light into Labour’s shadow

Peter Willsman’s reading of  Banana Republic UK? by Sam Buckley, published in 2011, prompted another look at the parliamentary selection scandal and subsequent cover up in Erith & Thamesmead in 2009.

As well as covering covers vote rigging, fraud and error in British elections since 2001, this book has a section on “vote rigging in internal party elections”, which covers the Labour’s internal contests between Ken Livingstone and Frank Dobson to be London’s mayoral candidate, and between Rhodri Morgan and Alun Michael to be Labour’s leader in Wales, as well as the notorious case of the selection of Labour’s Parliamentary candidate for Erith and Thamesmead in 2009.

Readers may recall that the postal vote ballot box for this selection was put into a cupboard at Labour’s HQ, where it was broken into, and ballot papers were ripped up.  I was a ward secretary and executive member in Erith and Thamesmead at the time and would like to put on record the whole sorry saga.

On the recommendation of senior officials at HQ, Erith and Thamesmead was made an ‘All Women Shortlist’.  The GC had been consulted and every delegate had opposed an AWS, with one abstention (my own).  Rumours soon began to circulate that Georgia Gould, daughter of Lord Phillip Gould, was to be parachuted in.  According to Buckley, Gould “was a twenty-two year old Oxford graduate, whose main work experience had been as a part-timer for Tony Blair’s Faith Foundation and who was still studying at the LSE

Rumours also circulated that the campaign consultancy, BBM, was assisting Gould.  BBM stands not of course for “ballot box manipulation” as one commentator quipped but for Barnard, Braggins and McDonagh, all former senior officials of the Labour Party.  BBM now employs at least six staff.  The most controversial is the former Labour Party General Secretary, Baroness Margaret McDonagh, who always ensured that all party staff were “on message”.

In the bad old days Margaret was an operator in the hard right and shadowy Labour First organisation, many of whose members practice the Stalinist credo of ‘the ends justify the means’.  I know Margaret quite well and used to dance with her at party socials!  My former dancing partner has also been fingered by Seymour Hersh in the New Yorker as being up to her neck in the post Saddam Iraqi election, on behalf of the West’s favourite, Iyad Allawi.  I have recently been informed by an employee of BBM that they were not actually employed as an organisation to work for GG, but that several leading figures from BBM nevertheless did assist her during the campaign.

In Erith and Thamesmead, teams of young people were knocking on doors trying to get party members to sign up for postal votes.  When challenged they first said they were ‘from the Labour Party’, but then admitted they were from Mitcham and Morden constituency party and were helping the Gould campaign (Mitcham and Morden being the CLP of my erstwhile dancing partner).  There were authoritative reports of Alistair Campbell ringing up at least one party member pleading for support for Gould.  I was also told that a Labour member of the House of Lords, with an African heritage, was phoning all the party members with similar backgrounds in the two Thamesmead wards. If true this had the desired effect, because there were uniquely large attendances at the meetings in these wards and Gould was nominated by both.

But as the final selection meeting drew near it was clear to me that Gould was losing ground and had no chance of winning.  Then, on what seemed to me to be a somewhat flimsy pretext, the General Secretary, Ray Collins, ordered that the postal vote ballot box be taken from the CLP and lodged at HQ ‘for safe keeping’.  On the eve of the selection meeting the box was broken into and the General Secretary immediately ordered a delay of several weeks and the complete re-running of the postal vote process.

During the extra time, the Gould campaign threw everything in. Cabinet Minister Tessa Jowell came down and addressed members on behalf of Gould (according to Buckley, Jowell broke the protocol and did not inform the sitting Erith and Thamesmead Labour MP).  A leading economist (and former partner of Baroness Maggie Jones) addressed another meeting on behalf of Gould.  I’m told that he suggested that the callow Gould had a better grasp of the economics of international capitalism than all the other candidates – this included the eventual winner, Teresa Pearce of Erith, who had spent several years in a senior position in the world of finance.  But all to no avail, Gould’s parachute was full of holes.

At Labour’s national executive, Cath Speight (the formidable Chair of the Organisation Committee) and Ann Black (the equally formidable Chair of the Disputes Committee) were determined to carry out a thorough investigation into the abuse of the ballot box.  Security has always been tight at HQ, all visitors have to be accredited. Anyway, the cupboard was not a place where any visitor would be allowed to wander.

I have no doubt that this was an inside job. Cath and Ann employed a forensic expert and a clear finger print of the miscreant was isolated.  The fact that gloves weren’t worn shows how confident the person was that they’d get away scot-free.  I would have thought that the best procedure would have been to have then told the staff and allowed them to volunteer to be finger printed. This would have lifted the dark cloud of suspicion that hung over the whole HQ.  But I’m told that the staff weren’t consulted at all and that one senior official, in particular, used the ‘human rights of the staff’ argument to close down the whole investigation.

The new General Secretary, Iain McNicol, supported by Ed Miliband, has instituted a new regime and made it clear to all party staff that they must be strictly impartial at all times and act like civil servants.  This is a breath of fresh air and returns the Party to the regime of General Secretaries up to, and including, Larry Whitty.  But I feel that in addition we need to create the position of an independent Party Ombudsperson, as proposed by Prof Keith Ewing.  This would give every party member reassurance.  Hopefully in the new regime an Ombudsperson wouldn’t have much work to do.  But we may not always be served by comrades as moral and honourable as Iain and Ed!

This self published book by a trade union activist is dedicated to five rank and file union officials who were sacked for fighting against injustice.  On vote rigging, fraud and error in British elections, Buckley covers those cases where vote rigging has been proven: in Birmingham, Slough, Peterborough, Reading, Bristol, Burnley, Blackburn, Halton, Guildford, Havant and Bradford. He concludes that much more must be done to tighten up the provision of postal votes and that election petitions should be reformed so that it doesn’t take a fortune to challenge a stolen vote.


  1. Imran Khan says:

    This whole sorry saga shows how Labour is creating dynasties in the way that the Tories used to and makes Labour vulnerable to criticisms.

    The party, at least in Parliament, is in danger becoming full of the scions of leading Labour dynasties and policy wonks. God help us if we become dominated by the likes of the Blair children and the Owen Jones of this world.

    Labour needs to reconnect with its roots, and fast.

  2. john reid says:

    the hypocirsy of those who didn;t like the Ken stictch up ,was it was those who’ d introduced block voting by union barons 19 years earlier

  3. Imran Khan says:

    John Reid.

    I take it that you are referring to the somewhat unfortunate decision by the London Labour Party to select the unelectable Ken Livingstone as its candidate for the last Mayoral elections.

    If not, please do clarify.

  4. Matty says:

    John Reid, as normal, gets his facts totally wrong. 19 years? Union block voting has been part of Labour ever since its creation over 100 years ago.

    As for Ken being unelectable Imran, in 2008 in the first round of voting Ken got 37% of the votes while the Labour candidates for the assembly got 28% and in the local elections in 2008 which took place in the rest of the country Labour was on a projected national share of just 24% so clearly Ken was more popular than the rest of the party.

  5. Robert says:

    Well of course Ken did lose, he gave it his best but lost, for John of course Ken lost because he’s old Labour, not New labour, unless it’s David Miliband or Tony then labour will not win in the future.

  6. john reid says:

    matty unions balloted their members for the first 80 years of th elabour party,

    quoting for me agian are you robert, i’ve never said ken lost becuase he was old laobur in 2008 I organised teh campaign for laobur in Havering in 2008 got out over 200,000 leaflets and we got 2000 more votes in Havering in 2008 than in either 2004 or 2012,

    Quoting the 2008 results matty,labour was on only 24% in the polls na dken did better than he did in 2000, getting on seocnd prefs’ 104,000 more votes in 2008, so I don’t buy that it was Gordons fault that Ken lost in 2008

  7. Robert says:

    History lessons again John

  8. Matty says:

    I didn’t say it was Gordons fault that Ken lost the election in 2008, I just pointed out in response to Imran’s point about Ken being supposedly unelectable that Ken has actually often been more popular than Labour nationally.

    As for the block vote, it seems to me that you are confused. “unions balloted their members for the first 80 years of th elabour party,” What ballots are you referring to? Can you give any examples?

  9. john reid says:


    Robert as you know fall well I had David Miliband as my fifth choice for leader, from days as micking his as banana boy, on labour home, through to the days of labour list, idon’t see how you can compare my admiration fro blair winning it 3 times to that of david

  10. Robert says:

    Jesus John your a Tory mate.

  11. Matty says:

    John Reid
    “omov” is that your final answer? You are obviously confused (not for the first time).
    As I understand it the Labour Party leader until 1981 was elected by the PLP. In 1981 there was a special conference which voted for an electoral college whereby unions and CLP’s could participate.

    I am guessing that your first comment refers to the 1981 special conference which you regard as a stitch-up. However, it did allow for broader participation than what had gone before so it’s a funny kind of stich-up. “unions balloted their members for the first 80 years of th elabour party,” is misleading as unions made decisions on party policy via their own policy making procedures which rarely included omov systems and at Labour Party conferences cast block votes.

  12. john reid says:

    Robert you made up on Labour home I use to be a tory, then when I pointed out I haven’t been you then repeated it on labour list, I’m not a tory and you MAte, Are a liar,

  13. Robert says:

    Well John your own words mate the left are a waste of space they could not win in 1980’s and they will not win now only New Labour can win. Your a follower of Tony Blair a right wing Tory, and since you follow him mate your a Tory he was

© 2024 Left Futures | Powered by WordPress | theme originated from PrimePress by Ravi Varma