Latest post on Left Futures

The banana republic mentality of the Labour NEC

The NECWhen was the last time a mass social democratic party anywhere in the world was formally forbidden to meet? The best answer I can come up with is 1973, in the wake of the military takeover in Chile.

Yet such is the surreal situation in which the Labour Party now finds itself. This, not as a result of some draconian decision of the British state, but by unilateral decree by its own National Executive Committee.

Some 130,000 dues paying members have been disenfranchised via retrospective change to the rulebook. If there is any precedent for this step from any major institution in civil society, I am completely unaware of it.

Imagine the fuss if a trade union, or the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, or the National Trust tried to pull off a stunt of that nature. It would be judged nothing short of a scandal, and correctly so.

Come to that, what labour movement organisation in history has ever set a level of dues with the deliberate purpose of deterring the low paid, the unemployed, the disabled, the very people the labour movement purports to champion, from signing up? The righteous considereth the cause of the poor: but the wicked regardeth not to know it.

To top it all, Brighton and Hove District Labour Party, the largest individual Labour Party in the country, has been suspended. The reported reason is that one of its newly elected officials signed a petition in solidarity with trade unionists in Zimbabwe five years ago.

Those of us old enough and ugly enough to have been around 1980s and 1990s are in danger of being intensely relaxed about various exercises in low-level chicanery, mendacious underhand jiggery-pokery and general purpose clandestine string-pulling we are so used to seeing from Labour Party officialdom.

We’ve seen an infinite number of conference resolutions composited into meaningless pap, and watched helplessly as SpAds were parachuted into mining constituencies in much the manner of Operation Market Garden. Unfortunately, we have become inured to dirty tricks.

Many newcomers who have joined Labour over the last year, naively attached to commonsense notions of basic fairness, won’t be quite so blase. Some will actually be shocked, and hopefully minded to challenge such skulduggery.

What we are witnessing is, in a word, intimidation. Intimidation by a bureaucratic machine. Intimidation on a grand scale, with the express intent of ensuring the desired outcome of a challenge to the leadership of Jeremy Corbyn.

What the NEC have done is only one step up from banana republic politics. A bit more subtle than bog standard ballot box stuffing, maybe. Not quite as crude as getting the payroll to vote early, vote often. But the intent is pretty much the same.

The irony here, of course, is that intimidation is frequently singled out as the original sin of the Labour left. From the Bennites through to the Corbynistas, our political progress has supposedly been built on strong arm tactics rather than rational persuasion.

We are routinely attacked – often on scant evidence – as the throwers of bricks and the issuers of death threats. The more lurid the claim, the greater the likelihood it will be retailed as good coin, without even cursory efforts to establish whether or not it stacks up.

Where abuse is proven, perpetrators should face the consequences. Damage to property and hate speech are both criminal offences. If a Corbyn supporter is found guilty on either count – and to date, this hasn’t happened, not even once – no one will seek to exculpate them.

But in the meantime, let’s remember that there is a big difference between an intemperate Tweet and fixing a Labour leadership race through administrative duplicity. Morality is already on our side. If things come to a head, let’s hope the courts are, too.

43 Comments

  1. Carmen Malaree says:

    I think this move by some members of the NEC – I understand draconian decisions were taken when some members had left the room – is unprecedented. It’s obvious that not allowing CLP and BLP meetings has been done to immobilise those who support Mr Corbyn. It sends a very negative message to the public at large, defeating the very object (the need to reach to a wider electorate) for which Mr Corbyn is so much criticised by those who put these draconian measures in place.

    1. Tim Wilkinson says:

      One of the main reasons for suspending all local party mettings was to forestall the expected vote of no confidence against Eagle.

      In fact this might well have been sufficient sole motoivation in itself, wiothout the need to consider further beenfits such as suppressing pro-Corbyn confidence votes. It is a standard tactic to use blanket measures to disguise a much more targeted intent even though – in fact, specifically because – they may appear to a casual observer disproportionate. (By the standard of achieving the objective unconstrained by ordinary mortals’ conception of what is fair or reasonable, such moves don’t come out as disproportionate at all.)

      In fact it was probably counter-productive, though at this late and desperate stage in the attempt to resurrect New Labour, it’s fairly unclear and largely academic which measures are actually counterproductive compared to the ‘do nothing’ option.

      1. Tony says:

        Yes, her reply to Andrew Marr very much confirms this:

        http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b07lp37j/the-andrew-marr-show-17072016

    2. Matty says:

      Yes, a meeting was called at 24 hours notice. Most NEC members are not full-time politicos and some have caring responsibilities, work obligations etc.
      The first major vote on the leader’s right to be on the ballot paper wasn’t taken till about 8pm (the meeting had started at 2pm). Some then had to go home. Jeremy has been criticised for leaving but earlier in the meeting he had already been criticised for being present due to conflict of interest and had to leave the meeting (he was only let back in for the vote (and that as a result of a further vote). In all likelihood if he hadn’t left after 8pm there would have been more argument on whether he should stay or go.

  2. Tim Wilkinson says:

    I’ve heard suggestions (from unreliable sources) that the leader’s office is content to let these measures stand. I can see the arguable pros:

    1. Maintain ‘high moral ground’ on some conception of same

    2. Victory is likely regardless, and its legitimacy strengthened if achieved in the face of attempted spoliation tactics

    3. Legal action not certain to be successful vis-a-vis at least some issues, and failed suits are a propaganda liability

    4. Resource contraints, esp given the likelihood of the other side pursuing appeals to victory or exhaustion

    Nevertheless I think it’s a mistake not to challenge the NEC decisions in the courts on procedural, administrative/company and quasi-contract/estoppel/other substantive grounds.

    The reason for this is that if we do not challenge these actions, they will continue to attempt more and more outrageous faits accomplis based solely on having control of the NEC letterhead.

    1. The expectation of robust opposition will tend to deter them

    2. the hearing of cases will help to expose and discredit their tactics publicly

    3. judgements, declarations and remedies gained in court are likely to help prevent or impede further abuses.

    4. Oh, and these actions ought to be opposed and reversed, because they are unjust

    I hope the lack of legal action isn’t based on legal advice from tame briefs – we should be getting opinions from scrappers sympathetic to our cause, not from anyone who fits the profile of quisling or quietist.

    1. Carmen Malaree says:

      Good points.

    2. C MacMackin says:

      I’d suggest that it isn’t the Leader’s Office which should be filing the lawsuit. That can be portrayed as petty and power-grabbing. It is better to have the grassroot supporters (i.e. Momentum) do it.

      1. John P Reid says:

        Grass routs supporters infiltrate currently ok running cLPs ,mess them up, shock

  3. jeffrey davies says:

    spot tim spot on to stop deselection of mps but never mind 54 to 8or9 against eagle they did have a meeting and liverpool without the nec the peasants are waking up to fact that blair babies aint going to leave the party without trying to break it apart yet jc seems the right man to atleast set that house of ill repute back to a honest parliament

  4. if you read Nichol’s actual email to members, you will see that he refers to intimidation of members and the NEC’s duty of care to prevent this.

    Sad you cannot read what the party sends you

    Trevor FIsher.

    1. Tim Wilkinson says:

      Reading it is straightforward. It’s believing it that poses a problem.

    2. John Penney says:

      And you actually believe this laughably bogus Head Office justification do you Trevor Fisher ? If so, I have a dead cert gold mine map I wish to sell you for £1,000.

      Excellent article from David Osland.

    3. James Martin says:

      Trevor, Nichol dod not give details of this ‘intimidation’ and I am not aware of any myself. Perhaps you will be so kind as to list the actual ‘intimidation’ that has taken place (real examples please, not made up ones which seem to be quite common at the moment). Of course if you cannot list any real examples of ‘intimidation’ perhaps you would then like to explain why Labour Party members have been disgracefully banned from having meetings?

    4. Historyintime says:

      ‘Duty of care”, when used as a justification for restrictive measures, is almost always dubious – an excuse for predetermined actions.

      More specifically its a sad day when expressing an opinion about your party’s leader is seen as intimidation.

    5. JoeBaxter says:

      The justification given by McNicol doesn’t bear any analysis. If the issue is potential intimidation and threatening behaviour then how is it possible to go on with nomination meetings, surely these meetings are exactly those meetings where intimidatory and threatening behaviour are most likely to happen. Additionally it is difficult to understand why the supposed intimidation and abusive behaviour should be rewarded in this way. Where there are reports of intimidation and abusive behaviour it would be right for the Party to investigate and that might involve suspension and/or closing down of a local party or branch but why should the rest of the Labour Party membership suffer.
      The truth is this is a not very subtle attack on the left of the party, an attempt to stifle open debate and to assert the dominance of the PLP and Party structures which are now given free reign to be the public face of the Labour Party during the period of the leadership election.

  5. Paul Wildish says:

    While members with any democratic conscience condemn the action of the NEC in suspending the leegitimate functioning of the Party, it seems there is precious little we are willing to do about it. No calls for mass defiance? No demonstrations outside Labour HQ? No moves in the courts to get this decision overturned. It’s as if, fearful of making things any more difficult for Corbyn’s re-election, the Left has been caught in the headlights of the machine and has become paralysed. Is there no action to be taken?

  6. Richard Tiffin says:

    Great article, what can we do about it? How can we reach those now isolated from party activity who may become susceptible to the obvious anti Corbyn propaganda spewing from the media? How can we be sure to win?

  7. Paul Wildish has put the key issue. there is no action by the left and indeed Corbyn’s office – though the hike in Supporters Subs may be challenged – because once the duty of care is invoked then the legal situation is clear. No actual examples of intimidation are needed – though reading the press there are plenty suggested and the Guardian today carried a letter stating that COrbybn has had death threats, which the police should be investigating.

    But once a duty of care is invoked no organisation in existence could not take action. Its a preventative measure to stop meetings and this is the most worrying thing about it. If threats can close down the party, then its clearly possible for anyone to paralyse it. But the NEC had no choice given the actual police action involving members of the party under threat.

    With actual successful prosecutions. If you don’t know about them, read the papers.

    Trevor Fisher.

    1. John Penney says:

      Self serving, disingenuous, drivel, trevor fisher . If there is an identified “intimidation problem” in specific branches, then that branch or CLP could in some circumstances be justifiably closed down whilst it was sorted out, IF the problem was genuinely serious. This in no way justifies closing down ALL branch activity all over the country. there is no problem in my North Shropshire CLP, yet our democratic Party meetings are now banned !

      All this gerrymandering and banning of internal branch life is about is smearing the Left with mainly bogus or exaggerated tales of “intimidation, an attempt to isolate Members so they become more susceptible to mass media lies, and an attempt to isolate MP’s from the democratically expressed anger of their CLP members at their treacherous activities.

      So spare us the sanctimonious guff about “duty of care”, trevor, and return to Progress from which you came.

      1. In reply to Penney, Martin and Wilkinson, my branch has been suspended for over two years and I am well aware of the arbitrary nature of the LP decision making process.

        But on duty of care, the law will assume that an action has been taken to deal with a threat and if not will punish the organisation concerned. ALl trade unions know this and trade union reps are warned not to ignore complaints.

        Whether an action is proportionate is for a court to decide. But taking no action is not an option.

        As for naming names, Mr Martin, with the law of libel as it is do you seriously think I am opening myself up to legal action? Whatever the case, and I would never go off mere newspaper reports and expose myself, commenting or naming any individual would run the risk of an action for defamation.

        Do you know the law on these matters?

        For the record, since my branch has indeed been suspended for over two years, I will place on record that I have never seen any examples of malpractice in my CLP since rejoining last year.

        Trevor Fisher.

        1. James Martin says:

          Trevor, you continue to excuse the outrageous attack on democracy in the Party trying to hide behind the law. You ask if I know the law on these matters, and yes actually, as a paid trade union official of many years standing I do actually, having on occasion had to deal with threats against lay reps. On not one occasion did I ever consider that the answer to those threats was to close down every flippin’ branch of the union in the whole country, which is the equivalent of what has happened here. And I will ask you again, please justify the actions of Nichol in relation to the media stories and previous prosecutions reported by the media that you referred me to as justification when there appear to be no examples involving Labour Party members at all in the prosecutions and none of the media stories of ‘intimidation’ stand up to any cursory researching of them (including the disgusting antics of Johanna Baxter the other day). This action by Nichol is political, not one based on the law or ‘duty of care’ but political and part of the coup against the membership.

          1. I am not going to comment on actions and allegations which may yet be for the courts to decide. However yesterday a letter in the Guardian stated as fact that Corbybn himself had had death threats. I deplore any threats to anyone. And if Corbyn has had death threats, then those who made them should the subject of a police investigation.

            So here is a case which would also explain why the NEC wanted a blanket ban on meetings.

            Clearly if Corbyn has not received death threats the statement is false. But its a factual situation, so lets have a factual response. Has the leader of the Labour Party received death threats or not?

            Just the facts please.

            Trevor FIsher.

    2. James Martin says:

      Your position on this is in my opinion disgraceful Trevor. I previously asked you to name any real incidents of intimidation. Unsurprisingly you can’t do so. Instead what you do is disingenuously (and rather insultingly) refer us to the media stories and prosecutions. Yes Trevor I know about these. Most of the media stories appear to be completely made up (Brighton & Hove CLP ‘intimidation’, the utterly fictitious homophobia allegations in Wallasey CLP), but the prosecutions you refer to are very telling, because yes, they have happened. But the shameful problem with them for your position is that none of them have involved and Labour Party members. Previous very nasty misogynist online threats against people like Stella Creasy led to a number prosecutions, but not of anyone connected to the Party. Previous (and likely the current) online anti-Semitic threats against Luciana Berger were done by a number of notorious Merseyside fascists, one of who was jailed for it. These fascists have also in recent times attacked trade union offices in Liverpool and the Wirral, the left bookshop in Liverpool and physically attacked with a knife the secretary of Merseyside TUC at his own Wirral home (and if I was going to put money on it I would say that they are the ones likely to have put a brick in Eagle’s building).

      But since when do isolated attacks from fascists (that have never been at an actual Labour Party meeting that I’m aware of), or online abuse from people that have been shown not to be Party members led to the closing down of every CLP? The ‘duty of care’ argument is nonsensical and wrong, and the fact that you go along with this deliberate attack on the Party membership using the same lies and fiction as Nichol and the coup plotters says rather a lot about your own politics.

      1. Matty says:

        Yes, the threats that have ended up in court have had nothing to do with Labour Party members so suspending meetings is irrelevant. Eg See http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/web-troll-admits-sending-vile-11614252

        The situation in Brighton is also bizarre – nobody has come up with any concrete allegations, yet the party gets suspended. See http://brightonandhoveindependent.co.uk/brighton-hove-labour-spitting/ on the “spitting” that never happened.

      2. James Martin says:

        “I am not going to comment on actions and allegations which may yet be for the courts to decide. However yesterday a letter in the Guardian stated as fact that Corbybn himself had had death threats… So here is a case which would also explain why the NEC wanted a blanket ban on meetings.”

        And there we have it, someone receives a death threats so we suspend meetings at a critical time. But similar threats and abuse seem these days to go to anyone who is in the media or on the telly. Big Brother and X Factor contestants and presenters get them all the time, as do those from ‘reality’ shows like TOWIE (yes, sadly I do know what that stands for), and yet (unfortunately) none of those shows are suspended are they Trevor? Of course former Labour leaders also got death threats too (including some very real ones from the likes of the IRA and INLA), and yet I can never remember Labour Party members being suspended during those times, can you Trevor? And the problem you have for your utterly bizarre position (either you haven’t actually thought it through, or you actually haven’t thought it through) is that in the social media age we are always going to have those fake threats, just as we have always had real ones. In fact talking of the latter, when Luciana Berger was getting anti-Semitic abuse and death threats from the Liverpool Fash a couple of years ago (leading one of the scum getting sent down) her CLP continued to meet – but if you had your way no doubt it would have been shut down (and what a victory that would have been for the Nazi’s, eh Trevor?). But take your position to its logical conclusion and we simply must suspend Parliament due to MP’s getting death threats – after all, a Parliament, a CLP there, what’s the difference when like Trevor Fisher you are happy to sell out the democracy that previous generations fought for so very cheaply. Your position isn’t just silly, it is highly useful for the right-wing political attack at the heart of the suspension of meetings.

        1. Tim Wilkinson says:

          Also, the rather pompous and self-important “I am not going to comment on actions and allegations which may yet be for the courts to decide” has zero legal or ethical justification- it’s clearly just an excuse to dodge unwelcome questions.

          And the idea that some death threat to Corbyn justifies suspending all local LP meetings (at which Corbyn would not be present) is ridiculous on its face.

        2. the suspension is a temporary measure to allow the leadership election to take place. Normal service resumes after that. Meanwhile sensible people would be backing moves to investigate all threats and not assume that they are fake. Which should be done via the police.

          As Owen Smith said this morning on Victoria Derbyshire that he had had death threats (it is 20 07) the issue becomes deeper and there is no left right aspect to it. Corbybn was said in a letter to the Guardian on Monday to have had death threats so is that being investigated? It should be.

          No one on this thread has mentioned, scandalously, that we are mourning the death by assassination of a Labour MP. Fake threats? In that case there was no threat at all.

          Yes action does have to be taken to protect our politicians and the threat to democracy is not a temporary suspension. It is people who think that the Labour Party is open to attack and the NEC will take no action to protect members. Which has to be via the police in the medium term, and what information has been passed to the police if any should be the appropriate action for the current threats.

          Doing nothing and letting the party fester is folly and the NEC temporary suspension was proportionate

          Trevor Fisher.

          1. Matty says:

            Lots (probably all) of these death threats come from fascists or from sad loners on the net. No evidence of any violence at meetings. They are going ahead with CLP leadership nomination meetings which you might think would be the most likely to see passions rise.

    3. Tim Wilkinson says:

      “once a duty of care is invoked no organisation in existence could not take action [etc etc]”

      Pull the other one, it’s got bells on.

      a) ‘duty of care’ is not some magic formula mere invocation of which has the power of compulsion. The actual risks have to be assessed and reasonable, proportionate responses considered.

      b) A duty of care ‘bites’ via the prospect of being sued for negligence. This is not a criminal or fiduciary matter, and there is no ‘precautionary principle’ requiring nor even licensing some extreme (over-) reaction

      c) Dark mutterings about ‘police action’ are immaterial.

      d) Obviously it’s a great excuse to claim the NEC had ‘no choice’. But it is quite false. There was plainly no need whatsoever to ban all local party meetings.

      1. Historyintime says:

        C’mon ‘duty of care’ is a fig leaf. Even if it were true political parties are allowed a lot of scope for robust internal behaviour in legal practice. But really we all know it’s a bullshit excuse and that includes the right.

        1. Tim Wilkinson says:

          Yes, that’s essentially my point

    4. John P Reid says:

      Well said Trevor

  8. Verity says:

    Babes in Arms

    In the last election Corbyn won (only) 49.6% of the membership vote on an 84% turnout. Given a year of relentless negativity with some MPs ‘blocking’ media space with Corbyn ridicule and others doing the same on a part time basis (albeit with a sad heart!), we should be alert to possible slippage in the membership category of support.

    A single candidate will avoid some of the previous opposition weaknesses. That is everything the ‘irreconcilables’ want and need. They do not need to win overall if they can later undermine the other two categories – Affiiates and Supporters. Their argument for continuing with the same tactics for the next few (many) years will amount to ‘speaking up for truly committed Labour members’. This being reinforced by ‘fighting’ against the ‘intimidation’ and ‘abuse’, ‘anti-semitism’, ‘misogyny’ etc – the same worries necessitating the closure of CLP meetings. The search for abuse in social media for exclusion of individuals from voting includes the use of the word ‘traitor’ of other members and the everyday political banter that is now classed as abuse or even threats.

    There will be some amongst the previous Labour members for Corbyn who never grasped the Left case against the EU; and others who think getting the ‘right’ answer next time is necessary. There will be some who think MPs have tried and this may win over some support. There will be other Labour members who are fearful of radical departure Trident weapons manufacture or the impact on jobs. The effects of gerrymandering of the membership vote, ie. introducing the maximum membership qualification period; and the cash discouragement for Supporters, ie. the (realistically) maximum charge of £25 (even to those having already paid for membership for up to six months) could be an alert to us of the danger of lower support for Corbyn.

    But all this should have been obvious. As a consistent Labour supporter but recent Supporter, with no previous Party membership, even I could predict it. Why are the Left left looking like ‘babes in arms’? Hubris so symbolised by McDonnell’s celebration ‘plotters – speech’ mimicking Kinnock’s Sheffield ‘victory’ rally. Or the members who left the NEC meeting before completion of business to take the accolades from cheerleaders on ecstasy, thereby leaving some of those left to make ‘accommodation’ to show their reasonableness to those who are masters of maneuverers and the Dark Arts.

    1. John Penney says:

      The unprecedented mass media campaign of lies, and the gerrymandering of 130,000 newer Members, the deliberate chaos in the PLP manufactured by the Blairites and their allies, and the sudden apparent faux Left conversion to “socialism” of both Smith and Eagle, could well cut into Jeremy’s share of the vote this time round – but Jeremy will undoubtedly still win outright.

      Then what will the Labour Right and their allies in the PLP and the Party Machine do ? They are already securing the vast funds from their billionaire backers to launch a new “Centre Party”.

      The Left have undoubtedly made very serious tactical and operational mistakes – but now is not the time for disunity on the Left about that. We need to win this contest , or the Left advance within Labour is over – for ever – and the general Left advance that Corbyn’s victory represents will be given a severe setback.

      1. John Walsh says:

        I took Verity’s point to be that JC may not win – two-horse race / very few ‘supporters’ (given the fee and bizarre sign-up period) / more organised smears against Corbyn / more organised ‘be a true Labour member’ rhetoric / mass exclusion on the basis of use of the ‘wrong’ words on social media. I would add in that rigging of the actual vote would be an obvious tactic.

        For me, Paul Wildish (July 18, 2016 at 3:32 pm) is asking the most important question – what action is going to be taken? In my area the Branch is holding ‘gatherings’ in place of meetings (same venue and same dates) and the Momentum people are phone-banking (not sure who to – maybe they have the national data). But, the crux problem remains – all these members and it’s just the usual suspects (the ‘great comrades’, as they refer to themselves on social media) in charge and not willing to allow others in. For example, we here that ‘a legal challenge is being worked on’ – among the ordinary members are people with the skills who could contribute …

      2. Verity says:

        It makes no sense for the irreconcilables to form a new Party at this stage. That option will always remain open to them but is not required now. Their best tactic might be to continue exactly have they begun. Continue undermine; to form an unofficial non – registered, distinct Party’, unnamed, and in parliament; prepare the media for new stories; work on their promotion of newer and younger individuals; go for the ‘magic’ of being a women or being black; offer another challenge in one year/eighteen months’ time and then a further one thereafter and another until some of the efforts start to pay off. It makes no sense for them to be the actualParty breakers when everything they want can be achieved without.

        I believe the strategy will be for individual MPs to set to work on their own CLPs. They have an access that would be considered illegitimate by any other Party members. They can develop databases of activities and persons which then goes to feed the media/other party organs for possible exclusions or advantage.

        My argument is that the ‘babes in arms’ need to shake out of the exuberance of a past election; gain some discipline and strategy and stop the antics now; stop playing at social movement fun and get some organisation going. They need to learn how to communicate (at all); learn how to analyse a situation; learn how to manage and offer a strategy; say something about policy and get the ‘fan-clubs’ to embrace it.

        1. James Martin says:

          Yes, all good points well made Verity. As an old (non Militant) Liverpool District Labour Party survivor of the battle against rate capping in the 1980’s it is clear that Momentum are no Militant type organisation at a time when we actually need a disciplined leadership of the dispersed and unorganised left forces and members that has a clear sense of strategy and direction, something that for all their many faults Militant did well in Liverpool. Instead we react to events (often badly). We have no real answer to CLP’s being closed down or members denied the vote. We have not put out a clear narrative exposing the lies about ‘anti-Semitism’ or ‘intimidation’ and we have not even managed to pull together a distinct starting set of policy wishes to take forward (instead we have to put up with vague talk of ‘anti-austerity’) – there should at least have been a short set of ‘what we stand for’ policy statements led by Momentum that others could have rallied around at the same time as supporting Jeremy. We have even left it to Unite to take the lead on pushing for deselections when we should by now have a clear idea of how we are going to take this issue to national conference in September and in the meantime what local activists can do around trigger ballots even without mandatory reselction in place. This is a once in a generation opportunity, if we screw it up and let the right wing win (when they are in fact incredibly weak – but often better organised than us) then the future is bleak indeed.

        2. Nick Wall says:

          Many of last year’s ‘babes in arms’ are now seasoned veterans, and we’ve seen the results with dozens of CLPs turning decisively to the left in recent weeks.

          If Corbyn wins, there will be a further intake of new blood, and CLPs will wake up following the meetings ban to the fact that the character of the local parties is looking very different from what it was before the 2015 election. There can be no going back. A Corbyn win will surely mean that a great many more CLPs will shift left next year, and the accountability of MPs and elected representatives is going to be top of everyone’s agenda.

    2. John P Reid says:

      Was the membership 84% turnout, thought it was 72% or was that 72% of union members affiliated?

  9. alana moralen says:

    Many of those recently joining the Labour Party area said to have done so precisely to block the election of Corbyn, so surely the NEC is shooting itself in the foot or elsewhere.
    Interestingly, a panelist on the BBC news show Dateline said the party had blocked new members around two weeks before the NEC made its announcement, how did he know?

    1. Verity says:

      This is inaccurate, I could name individuals becoming Party members and readily accepted during this period.

      1. Verity says:

        …..although they have yet to receive a membership or card that is.

  10. Owen T. Jones says:

    John (Walsh), Momentum only has it’s own databases – based on supporters from last year, petitions, surveys etc. There’s a few myths going around, but as a former LP branch organiser, you only have access to names in your branch. I.e. any access to significantly large databases has to occur at quite a high level (CLP sec etc). Saving Labour should be queried on this.

© 2021 Left Futures | Powered by WordPress | theme originated from PrimePress by Ravi Varma