Dear all
It is time to talk about the elephant in the room - Labour Party suspensions. Around 8,000 people according to some. There may be many reasons some members are still suspended from the Labour Party, stuck in limbo, but a lack of useful, pertinent information to those affected is just one cruel aspect of this sorry state of affairs. Legal concerns and matters may be part of the problem but we members are just ordinary folk. We are not in it for the money, the power and the glory. We have our own life stresses and strains. When we opt to commit to a political party we deserve some respect. People join for many reasons and yes some do so mischievously. But the majority join the party to show support and pay for the privilege. In some cases they work their socks off trying to get the Labour Party message out and representatives elected. If they then respond angrily on social media using a word that the party machine has suddenly decided is off limits, such as TRAITOR, do they deserve suspension? When the party has trawled back over time following anonymous complaints regarding party members the affected member is scuppered. But as previously stated if you feel a person has betrayed you or broken a promise TRAITOR is a very fitting word. Those MPs who vowed to support Mr Corbyn when he was elected September 12, 2015, but did anything but, fit that category to perfection. But as #LabourPartyPurge2 drags on tempers are fraying and people are resigning - enough is enough and who can blame them for quitting. A sensible way forward would be an amnesty of sorts. The abuse timer reset, as after all in many cases it was simply angry debate and not abuse. That would allow a date to work from. No more trawling back over social media just a clean slate and new era following your re-election in 2016. Allowing the current situation to drag on is destructive. It means people listen to Chinese whispers and gossip. That results in more anger and the downward spiral circle continues to whirl out of control. It is not rocket science. It makes some conclude the party is still split, that a further leadership challenge could follow and it provides the mainstream media with ammunition all making Labour's electability a distant dream. For the sake of us all we need to hit the restart button. With so many factions working against each other little wonder people are 'speaking with their feet' and resigning. Who will respond to this open letter? Will anything change for the better in 2016? Or is the Labour Party just too big for its boots now. Party suspensions need putting to bed. Time to move on and work toward election success with all hands to the pumps. Note: The writer is not suspended. But she has Labour values which means she cares about those that are. Do you Mr McNicol?
Good Morning comrades. Well today is the day. The mainstream media including BBC rolling news is in Labour Party leadership election overdrive. The result of the election will be announced around 11.45am Saturday and though political pundits are declaring a win for Jeremy Corbyn hours earlier "it aint over till the fat lady sings." We remember recent poll predictions regarding the 2015 General Election and this year's EU referendum and remain cautious. The mainstream media are ignoring #LabourPurge2 which has removed thousands from the vote; add to this reportedly thousands of eligible voters who never received ballot papers after trying till they were blue in the face to get them issued; add to this those who would have liked a vote in the election but were excluded when an eligibility timeline of January 2016 was implemented and the vote is expected to be closer than last year. Don't expect to see or hear mainstream reports today that include Labour Party shenanigans that may have mainly hit Jeremy Corbyn supporters. But though cautious this Labour Party member remains hopeful. I do not believe Jeremy Corbyn is unelectable; I do not believe that if Corbyn is unelectable the challenger Owen Smith, an apparent physical clone of many other politicians, is somehow electable. If, and it is a big IF, Owen Smith wins I expect his time as party leader may be brief. The silly, damaging and nasty "chicken coup" has been about removing Jeremy who refused to simply roll over and quit when over-paid politicians and fat cat donors wanted a return to the "same old politics." But enough - later we will update this brief post and complete the headline "And the Labour leadership election winner is...." and hopefully it will be with the name Jeremy Corbyn. And the winner is JEREMY CORBYN well done all. "674,006 eligible voters. 506,438 votes cast. Spoiled votes 1,042 Jeremy Corbyn - 313,209 Owen Smith -193,229" Opinion: We are two-days away from the Labour leadership election result but the smear-a-day campaign trundles on. Thursday it is David Miliband. The mainstream media are running with the story that David Miliband has written a stinging article condemning Jeremy Corbyn as unelectable. Yes that old chestnust that drip feeds into the minds of some and becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. It is gathering pace like a round robin as the media run with various versions of the story. It strikes me as odd that ordinary working people struggling with all that life throws at them are being suspended from the Labour Party for using angry words on social media but people like David Miliband, and my MP Alan Johnson, are allowed a free rein to attack and undermine us all in the mainstream media. Labour MPs on the right of the party such as Wes Streeting are tweeting it is worth reading Miliband's article but one man on social media hits the nail on the head. "Aaron Bastani Twitter › AaronBastani "David Miliband earns £425,000 as head of refugee charity International Rescue ibt.uk/A6RUR?utm_sou… he ain't fighting no by-elections!" In other words those who think he may be about to step back into British politics for real are deluded but it does not stop him sticking the knife in. Little wonder David Miliband like other Labour fat cats Peter Mandelson, Tony Blair, Ed Balls, Alastair Campbell et al do not want real Labour politics with Jeremy Corbyn in pole position. Is it really because voters will not go for Corbyn or that THEY do not want such politics? David Miliband was expected to be elected leader of the Labour Party back in 2010 but he lost out to his younger brother Ed. "David Wright Miliband (born 15 July 1965) is a British Labour Party politician, charity chief executive and public policy analyst who was the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs from 2007 to 2010 and MP for South Shields from 2001 to 2013." David said he would not serve in Ed's shadow cabinet as he did not want the two brother's to be compared and presumably Ed somehow undermined. He left politics in 2013 triggering a by-election and moved on to pastures new. He took up the posts of President and CEO of the International Rescue Committee in New York City. But he has always been in the mix and in some people's eyes remains a natural successor to Tony Blair.
The BBC reports ""The main charge against Jeremy Corbyn is not just that his strategy is undesirable because it makes the party unelectable. That is only half the story. "The real issue is that his strategy makes the party unelectable because it is in many aspects undesirable" but undesirable for whom we wonder? Voting closed Wednesday at high noon but the right-wing of the Labour Party appears to have no intention of embracing the leadership election winner if it is Jeremy Corbyn. They continue to call Corbyn supporters hard-left and themselves moderates or centrists but who are they trying to kid? Though political pundits are predicting a win for Mr Corbyn remember such poll predictions have been wrong before. With a large number of eligible voters removed it could be a tight result. First it was a ridiculously early date for eligibility, then it was changes to the cost of being an affiliated supporter, then it was people removed in many cases for silly or non-existent comments on social media, it moved on to those who heaven forbid may have supported another political party in the past and possibly finally tens of thousands who did not receive ballot papers in time. Was the latter incompetence or foul play? Look at those ruled out of voting for any of the above reasons and you tend to find Jeremy Corbyn supporters. This has led to most people drawing to the conclusion that a fix is on. Whether it will be enough to return Owen Smith as party leader is doubtful but stranger things have happened and are continuing to happen. And as always you need to follow the money trail. Opinion: Sunday Eoin on Twitter has gone for "Andy Burnham manages to fight a leadership campaign last summer without abusing Corbyn or his supporters. Why can't Owen Smith so the same?" and he has nailed it once again.
This blogger attended an Andy Burnham event in Hull in the summer of 2015 and an Owen Smith one in 2016. They were both held at the same venue and both organised at least in part by East Hull Labour MP Karl Turner. In 2015 former deputy Prime Minister and local MP John Prescott played host. He added some humour to the event and veteran politics at one point saying he would have preferred the meeting included others standing for election and he mentioned Jeremy Corbyn in particular. That mention was as a positive and it was the only time the other leadership hopefuls were "in the room." The Owen Smith event was a very different affair. For one thing Alan Johnson West Hull MP attended but Prescott did not. In 2015 Mr Johnson threw his political support behind Yvette Cooper although his CLP failed to agree on a nomination. There were also less people at the Smith event. The question and answer session was similar to last year but those who asked some questions were labelled, probably correctly, Corbynistas. One man who seemed to be a Corbyn supporter wanted to ask in depth questions about the NHS but was told by some including Mr Johnson to sit down. To be fair time was limited and the event did overrun as Mr Smith was late. Last year I was a novice at events. I was inspired by Mr Burnham who seemed the best candidate for the job of party leader. For me Jeremy Corbyn was too old and I say that as one of his contemporaries. So I voted Burnham last year but accepted the democratic result and have supported Mr Corbyn who has in my eyes proved himself more than worthy over and over again. I also attended a Corbyn rally in Hull this summer and was more than impressed; finding the right word is not easy. The rally was fun, informative, entertaining, inspiring and more. And challenger Owen Smith was not "in the room." Corbyn has held many of his rallies outdoors to keep costs down and to accommodate the huge number of people attending. The Owen Smith event was ticketed. In order to attend you had to apply online giving an email address. But it did not take long for Corbyn to be "in the room" thanks to Mr Smith. One giggle for Smith supporters was a dig at Jeremy commenting he was "perhaps making jam" when he was not available. And sadly that was not the only dig. If Mr Corbyn wins the leadership election, and I seriously hope he does, he will have done so by fair means. If Mr Smith wins will he have been helped along by an unfair and biased purge of Labour Party members and attacking Mr Corbyn time and time again? From someone else who went to an Owen Smith rally http://www.newtekjournalismukworld.com/your-voice/so-i-went-to-an-owen-smith-event-in-halifax http://www.newtekjournalismukworld.com/british-political-scene/from-an-unelectable-jeremy-corbyn-rally-in-hull Nice work if you can get it and you can get it if you try. The words of that classic song seem to fit this story well. The Labour Party is advertising two jobs working for our party's dreadfully named Compliance Unit. This unit makes sure party members are not signing up for all the wrong reasons but as the Labour party leadership election 2016 rolls on it appears to have turned against some long standing party members. The level of party suspensions, reasons and people targeted has all the hallmarks of a McCarthy type witchhunt. So what price spying on party members, trawling their social media accounts, deciding what words could lead to suspension, inflicting emotional pain on those wrongly suspended and pulling Labour into a cesspit along the way? Role: Compliance Officer – Investigations x2 The labour Party is in a good financial position right now. This in part has to be down to a surge in membership and paid supporters. Those suspended or removed from the party by the Compliance Unit will be out of pocket. Fees will not be refunded. So will people purged from Labour be paying the salaries of those suspending them from the party? Those who claim Jeremy Corbyn is unelectable need a lesson in reality and the real world. A summer of purging party members and supporters, orchestrated shadow cabinet resignations and vitrolic articles written by some Labour MPs and shared in the mainstream media hammer home the message that Labour may be unelectable not Mr Corbyn. What price spying on members? £34,061.77 plus expenses. Will you be applying or would spying on comrades be a step too far? http://www.labour.org.uk/pages/current-vacancies oOp-ed: The Daily Mail often referred to as the Daily Fail is up to its usual tricks spinning a story for maximum exposure and negative impact; negative to Jeremy Corbyn, his supporters, party members and by association the Labour Party. It relates to wealthy Labour Party donor and one time 'wannabe' MP Michael Foster. Michael Foster has, finally, been suspended from the Labour Party after a series of Labour Party supporters and members have been purged from the party, depriving them of a leadership vote; until this weekend Foster has been sitting pretty. Many of those purged are Jeremy Corbyn supporters and most have been excluded for silly comments on social media. Few have actually crossed the red line of decency and abuse. Even fewer have been reported by the mainstream media but Mr Foster is headline news Sunday. MPs have been posting abusive comments for some time, perhaps acting as a red rag to a bull and drawing people in before Labour's dreadfully named Compliance Unit moves in suspending people. Little wonder there was an angry response to Foster's earlier Daily Mail piece likening a Corbyn rally in Cornwall and its audience to a 'circus' and 'stormtroopers'. Sunday as he is suspended Foster claims the Mail added the word 'Nazi' to their piece but he does not fool me. "In the article he wrote: "To me, respect for the rule of law is fundamental to a democracy. Once political parties believe they are above the law it ends with all opposition silenced, whether it is my grandparents in Dachau, or the Left in Erdogan's Turkey rounded up and held uncharged in prison. "The courts decided that the rules as they stand allowed it. This decision advantaged Corbyn and his Sturm Abteilung (stormtroopers)." If the alleged addition of the word "Nazi" bothered him he could have distanced himself from the Mail but today we have his party suspension featured in the Fail with the ridiculous title "Jeremy Corbyn reignites race row engulfing Labour as he launches vicious act of revenge and purges top Jewish donor who criticised his regime." What a nice inflammatory title. You may never read the story or the background but you may assess Corbyn as the dictator of a regime, decide that somehow Foster's suspension is to do with "race", that peace loving Jeremy is vicious and the party is "engulfed in a race row." What rubbish but damaging reporting. It is pure Daily Mail bunkum from start to finish but even the headline will drip feed into the minds of some. Other publications have gone for titles such as "Labour donor Michael Foster suspended from party over 'Nazi stormtroopers' article" and "Labour suspends donor for 'Corbyn team Nazi comparison." The Mail and Mr Foster apear to have a working relationship as it was their weekend publication that fully removed the lid off this real can of worms. But Mr Foster has been a vocal opponent of Jeremy Corbyn from day one. Corbyn was elected party leader September 12, 2015, and at an event a couple of weeks later Mr Foster was making waves and headlines: A Labour supporter who heckled Jeremy Corbyn at a Labour Friends of Israel reception has explained his reasons for shouting at the party leader. The fact Mr Foster is Jewish should be irrelevant but that report in the Jewish Chronicle stressed his religious faith. Mr Corbyn's refusal to say the word Israel in response to Foster's childish demands highlights the measure of the man; Jeremy has backbone and does not resort to personal attacks or game play. Fast forward to July and Foster dragged the party through the courts as he fought to prevent Corbyn being automatically on the leadership election ballot. But how could there be a leadership challenge if the incumbent leader was excluded from the election? The PLP plotters knew they could keep Corbyn off the ballot if he neded nominations but they also knew he stood a fair chance of being re-elected if he was allowed to stand. The National Executive of Labour voted to allow Jeremy an automatic right to be on the ballot by a majority vote. But Foster was not happy with party democracy when it did not suit his aims and dragged the party through the courts: Michael Foster, whose family has given £400,000 to the Labour Party, said he was concerned over the "apparent manipulation" of party rules by the ruling body, the National Executive Committee (NEC). So what does wealthy Mr Foster care if the Labour party is being ripped apart and ordinary working people left out in the cold? Will he really care if Labour fails to win elections or splits? Draw your own conclusions. http://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/146195/labour-donor-explains-why-he-heckled-jeremy-corbyn-israel-event http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/14/labour-donor-to-mount-legal-challenge-over-leadership-ballot http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/labour-donor-michael-foster-suspended-8811755 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37329153 http://www.newtekjournalismukworld.com/british-political-scene/jeremy-corbyns-day-in-court http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3783399/Jeremy-Corbyn-reignites-race-row-engulfing-Labour-launches-vicious-act-revenge-purges-Jewish-donor-criticised-regime.html Steven Hemmings
August 31, 2016 Iain McNicol General Secretary Labour Party Labour Central, Kings Manor Newcastle, NE1 6PA Dear Iain McNicol: It is with great sadness that I write this letter, I take no pleasure in having to point out to the wider public, outside the Labour party, the tragic and pitiful state the Labour party has descended into under your stewardship. When the current state of affairs is made known to the public at large the Labour party will become a laughing stock, and that is heart breaking for all true supporters of the socialist ideals of the Labour party. Above all else the Labour party, as an organization for social justice, has to lead by example and remember that the most important components of that organization are its members. They are the lifeblood of our party, and as such should be treated with the utmost respect. If we as a party cannot demonstrate that our organization is run in a democratic manor, that is beyond reproach, we will have no moral authority to govern this country, and we will never be taken seriously by the electorate. This purge of Jeremy Corbyn voters that is currently going on under your stewardship is nothing short of a disgrace. Over 100 years of Labour party values are being flushed down the toilet, and you are the one pulling the chain. Any decent Labour member or supporter, whether they support Jeremy Corbyn or Owen Smith, will be disgusted and appalled in equal measure at this crass and openly partisan rigging of the ballot. Most members probably don’t realize what is going on because of lack of reporting in the main stream media. The following arbitrary rule that you have set up specifically for this election is wrong on so many levels. “No abuse of any kind by members or supporters shall be tolerated. All eligible members and supporters must conduct themselves in a calm and polite manner and be respectful to each other at all times. Any racist, abusive or foul language or behaviour at meetings, on social media or in any other context will be dealt with according to the Rules and procedures of the Labour Party.”
This flagrant abuse of the democratic principle of free and fair elections has no place in a democratic society, and certainly no place in the Labour party. Examples of high profile Owen Smith supporters who have not been suspended are:
Compare this with the 100 000+ Corbyn supporters already purged from the Labour party and unable to vote for comments such as “I F”””ing love the Foo Fighters” on twitter, or in my case no information provided as to what I was supposed to have said. There are now only two courses of action open to you Mr McNicol, to allow you to retain some semblance of self respect and dignity, and more importantly, reestablish the Labour party’s credibility. The first is to suspend Owen Smith from the Labour party and thus withdraw his nomination to stand in this leadership election; or secondly rescind all suspensions made in this purge of Labour party members (excluding those suspended for racial abuse) from voting, and issue ballot papers forthwith. Sincerely, Steven Hemmings Member and supporter of the Labour party’s reputation http://stevenhemmings.com/labour-purge/
Do we count for nothing?
This is the tale of a retired psychiatric nurse, male, who has been a Labour Party member and supporter for the last 35 years. He is being denied a Labour leadership vote as around the time ballot papers started being sent out he was suspended from the Labour Party. He stands accused of wrongdoing on Twitter but has no idea what he has done. Many of us tweet foolishly in the heat of the moment or even carelessly retweet for another as tit for tat. But if you are a Labour Party member someone somewhere may by spying on you and it could result in suspension from the party. Wealthy party donors and MPs appear to be excluded from those rules however. The man at the heart of this story decided to fight his suspension by following legal procedures. Part of that is using the Data Protection Act to request what information pertaining to him the Labour Party holds . The image above is the form he received following that request but he will have to pay a £10 admin fee for the privilege of seeing his information. Note also it could take 40 days for any information to be released. In other words he will not be voting in the 2016 leadership election whether he is exonerated or not. It is standard procedure to apply an admin fee but this is the Labour Party which makes it different, or it should do. To many of Labour's core traditional supporters party membership fees are an expense; the £10 admin fee is another expense. As a long standing party member he has supported the party financially for many years but suddenly now he is a nobody. As the Labour Party continues to implode who would trust them with a vote? Are the coupsters already establishing their new party in case Corbyn wins and simply playing as a wrecking ball for now? We will update on our friend's case and in time be posting his own report of his Labour Party battle https://andrewgodsell.wordpress.com/2016/09/02/labour-hq-say-suspensions-not-being-investigated-until-after-leadership-ballot/ For those still waiting for ballots for the Labour Leadership contest, I have just been told the following:
-I have just been reissued with an email and postal ballot today-Fri 2nd September as I have still not received one as of 12pm. I rang 0345 092 22 99, pressed option 5, then option 2. -I was told I should receive my email ballot by Tuesday (6th Sep) or Wed (7th Sep). I should receive my postal ballot by a week from the date of request-in my case, Fri 9th Sep. -The man I spoke to was very helpful, but was NOT aware of circulating rumours of 102,000 eligible people still not receiving their ballots. He did think it was "bizarre" and "strange" what is going on, though. -The Cut off for asking for a ballot to be re-issued is: POSTAL BALLOTS (Just Full Members): Wed 7th September EMAIL BALLOTS (Everyone else INCLUDING Full Members): Wed 14th September -The man advised me to NOT wait until 14th September though if you still have not received the original ballot(s), or the re-issued ballot(s). HE SAID GET IN CONTACT SOONER. Also, he said if people vote via email and postal ballot, they take whichever is received first. The same goes if you suddenly receive the original ballot(s) AND the re-issued one(s). They will only accept one vote (obviously and rightly so!). -PLEASE MAKE SURE YOU CONTACT THEM ASAP -IF it is true that 102,000 eligible voters have not received their ballots, this is VERY worrying. If you add this to the 160,000 Full Members not allowed to vote, and approx 55,000 Registered Supporters not allowed to vote, that means a total of approx 317,000 people!!! That would be HALF of all the approx 640,000 Members/Supporters/Affiliates etc who thought they had a vote. -I'm sure the Electoral Services must have some explanation; maybe they are waiting for information from the Labour HQ? Who knows. But it does seem odd, IF and I say IF the Electoral Services, who deal with the General Election ballots that number at least 8 times the amount for this Labour Leadership election, are struggling, for whatever reason, to get these ballots out. What is going on? Many Thanks to Adam Samuels Under the inflammatory banner ““Jeremy Corbyn supporters expelled from Labour for threats to “cut Tony Blair’s eyes out and set him on fire”” The Telegraph has surpassed its level of low quality reporting.
Kate McCann, the Telegraph’s senior political correspondent, informs readers that a leaked document which contains damning evidence against Corbyn supporters, has been disclosed to the newspaper. McCann asserts that thousands of Labour Party members have used abusive language, such as the phrase contained within the headline, as well as the use of the word “traitor” to define current MPs, with some also announcing their alliance to the Green party or UKIP. McCann continues her report by attempting to discredit Corbyn for rightfully claiming that members have had their voting privileges removed over trivial matters and in some cases without explanation. In a recent letter to the Guardian, a number of comrades have exposed the tactics employed by the hierarchy of the Labour Party in an attempt to diminish the pro Corbyn vote:- http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/aug/31/double-standards-over-abuse-in-labour-party There are many of us who have still not received our ballot papers and it is interesting that the Daily Telegraph should find itself in possession of such an inflammatory document. McMann informs readers that some of the content of the alleged evidence is too explicit to be published and maintains that the members have been justifiably expelled from the Labour Party and banned from voting. According to McMann, sexist, racist and anti-Semitic abuse has been rife. McMann has found a “source close to the NEC” to reprimand members over “false claims” regarding their suspension over trivial matters and this source goes on to claim that we are bringing the Party into disrepute and that it is “shameful” that the NEC are expected to trawl through torrents of abuse on social media “as part of this robust process." I refute this argument. A member joins a party of their choice, pays their subscription to their party of choice and should therefore be eligible to participate in the democratic process within that party. That individual may well have supported a previous party in the recent past but they have opted to support the one that they have joined. We are allowed to change our minds; one famous example is Michelle Dorrell. [http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/michelle-dorrell-tory-voter-in-tearful-question-time-attack-on-government-now-supports-jeremy-corbyn-a6697691.html Michelle Dorrell Question Time in 2015.] Some members of the Labour Party may well hold views that do not always chime with the Party, for example, The Telegraph’s very own John McTernan but there is no call to examine in minute detail the contents of each individual’s social media accounts. It smacks of underhanded tactics and I find it hard to believe that the thousands of Corbyn supporters denied the vote are abusive, racist, sexist, bigots. It is most likely additional propaganda to vilify Corbyn supporters in an attempt to discredit Corbyn and justify Mcternan’s column inches while promoting McCann’s prowess as a correspondent. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/01/jeremy-corbyn-supporters-expelled-from-labour-for-threats-to-cut/ http://www.newtekjournalismukworld.com/georgie-harrison/category/john-mcternan/ http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-12-11/leaked-emails-reveal-aggressive-style-of-john-mcternan/5149158 Many thanks to Georgie Harrison -------------------------------------------------------- A look at John McTernan's Twitter timeline Thursday and his latest retweet is this "John McTernan Retweeted Miss Politics @Pooolitics @moresignposts @DTraynier @greeninfashion @johnmcternan Good man" but we know Miss Politics of old. We blocked her some time ago as she is either a troll inciting twitter hate for whatever reason or something more sinister. Perhaps both accounts are linked or even the same person as twitter bios are often false. How many people are suspended due to fake reposrts from fake accounts? For fair play we have shared a few of Miss Politics standard tweets below for you to decide. A letter to the Guardian from just a few Labour Party members who received a party suspension letter as voting got underway to elect the 2016 party leader.
"We are members of the Labour party who have been suspended or subject to the attentions of Labour’s compliance unit. We are amazed that there has not been an outcry in the media about the tactics and methods that have been employed to debar supporters of Jeremy Corbyn from voting in the leadership election. (Corbyn attacks treatment of suspended party members, 29 August) If it had been the left that had been ringing people up at home to ask them why they have joined the party or had been trawling through people’s social media posts to find “evidence” of abusive behaviour, the air would be heavy with condemnations. It is one thing for someone to be suspended as a result of a genuine complaint of abusive behaviour. It is a different matter for party officials to openly look for a pretext to stop people from voting. If this were a public election, Labour’s officials would be guilty of corrupt electoral practices. But Michael Foster, despite having described Corbyn and his supporters in an article for the Mail on Sunday as Nazi stormtroopers, has not been denied a vote. Abuse from the right of the Labour party is accepted; a tweet expressing support for the Foo Fighters is deemed a hanging offence. If by some miracle Owen Smith were to win, the victory would be for ever tainted. Tony Greenstein, Jackie Walker, Nana Asante, Clare Ayton-Edwards, John Dunn, Jason Everson, Peter Gates, Andrew Godsell, Andy Gunton, Annette Harrison, Andrew Hardman, Simon Hinds, Allen Lane, Chris Lent, Philip Lewis Vice-chair, Camden Unison, Adam Soper, David White My email to NEC members Ann Black and Pete Willsman today regarding the recent suspensions and rejections of members:
Dear Ann and Peter, Re: Recent rejections or suspension of new and existing members by the Compliance Unit I write to you both as a matter of some urgency following the news of a number rejections or suspensions of new and existing members to our Party. As you both may be aware, this has even included the suspension of the former miner and Orgreaves Justice campaigner, John Dunn, who has been a member of our Party for the last 45 years, and for no apparent reason beyond his challenge of Owen Smith following Owen's hustings in Orgreaves. Two indeed happen to be Facebook forum members of mine, with whom I have had the opportunity to examine the reasons put forward as to why they were rejected. Frustratingly, for the gravity of these decisions and their consequences, the amount of information or detail supporting the Party's decision to reject seems to be inversely proportional to the seriousness of it! In one case, no more is offered by way of a rationale beyond a single sentence reading, "You tweeted in support of the Green party on 5 July 2016" In the other case, a new member has been informed of her rejection by the following, "You posted comments online which are in breach of the party's recruitment rules" The letters, which unfortunately I do not have specific permission to share at this time, do not go into any more details than that - in the first, we are no more clearer of the offending tweet than we are of the precise rule that has been breached by the online comments condemned in the second. This is haphazard at best, and at its worst comes across as wholly arbitrary, Kafkaesque and capricious. I cannot be alone in thinking that such important decisions must be taken on the basis of sound facts and reasoning, and that such decisions must be conveyed to respondents with as much information as possible so as to facilitate an appeal and rebuttal to these serious charges. In both these cases, the respondents are none the wiser as to their offending actions! We were neither are able to locate this offending tweet, nor the precise rule that has been supposedly breached due to a lack of clarity, which beggars the question how they are to appeal on such a basis! A number of helpful comrades have already advised that affected members ought to contact the barrister Liz Davies using the link http://www.whycantivote.com/. However, with only two weeks to appeal and the possibility of a 12-month ban from joining without an appeal, you will undoubtedly understand both the frustration and upset this has caused. I would be most grateful for your advice under these circumstances and for permission to share your advice with the forum upon receipt. The upcoming leadership election is without doubt vitally important to both the future of our Party, and indeed how we are to go about uniting as one following a difficult and at times unpleasant contest. I am without doubt that you both stand by not only the need for a fair and robust contest, but indeed the need for such a contest to also be seen as fair, robust and impartial. It is my fear that these recent rejections and suspensions clearly are not in the interest of these exacting standards befitting our Party, and I implore you to look into them and to provide the much needed reassurance that this contest will be run to the highest standards we as a Party are able to achieve. I have for the benefit of doubt copied this email to my local branch secretary, Councillor John Tanner of South West Central branch (Oxford). I would be most grateful for your advice and any help you may be able to offer. Yours in comradeship, Thomas Li Oxford SWC Branch The decision by Labour party officials to suspend the bakers’ union leader, Ronnie Draper, from the party and deny him a vote in Labour’s leadership election over unidentified social media posts is shocking, and appears to be part of a clear pattern of double standards.
While Ronnie, a supporter of Jeremy Corbyn, has been denied his say in Labour’s election, no action is being taken over the Labour peer, Lord Sainsbury, who has given more than £2m to support the Liberal Democrats. And no action has been taken against Michael Foster, the Labour party member who abused Jeremy Corbyn’s supporters and staff as Nazi stormtroopers in the Daily Mail. Both will, as things stand, be able to vote in this election. Meanwhile, thousands of other members and registered supporters are reported to have been denied a vote without being given an explanation or opportunity to challenge the decision or process. Labour party members will not accept what appears to be a rigged purge of Jeremy Corbyn supporters. The conduct of this election must be fair and even-handed. I am writing to Labour’s general secretary Iain McNicol to demand that members and supporters who are suspended or lose their voting rights are given clear information about why action has been taken and a timely opportunity to challenge the decision. In particular, the specification of particular terms of abuse to exclude Labour party members from voting should not be applied retrospectively. http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/aug/25/labour-party-suspends-pro-corbyn-union-chief-ronnie-draper Suspensions from the Labour Party are continuing as party members and eligible affiliates cast their vote for Labour Party leader. People are sharing their stories and asking questions:
This is one man's rapid response to an email Wednesday telling him he is suspended: From:************ Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell said in a statement: "And no action has been taken against Michael Foster, the Labour party member who abused Jeremy Corbyn’s supporters and staff as Nazi stormtroopers in the Daily Mail. We the people are watching and we do not like or respect what we see.
Below are just a couple of offensive tweets. Little wonder ordinary voters are spitting feathers: |
All things CorbynLatest news, views and more Archives
September 2021
Categories
All
|