Should Corbyn remain as Labour leader?

[sir roger]

Eagle at it again saying that the Police told her to cancel any constituency surgeries , forcing the police to make a statement that they gave security advice at her request but that the decision to cancel the surgeries was hers and not within police remit. Sadiq Khan has criticised Eagle for the move.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

No it isn't. The Corbynite left would rather stick rigidly to their beliefs and lose than compromise to have a crack at winning. Revolution appears to be their aim, given that anyone, even in their own party, advocating slow, incremental change is told to sod off and join the Tories.

I'll be generous and put this nonsense down to trolling and not to stupidity.

[Anubis]

A story of crazed cultists....

 

http://wire.novaramedia.com/2016/07/democracy-suspended-what-really-happened-at-the-brighton-labour-agm/?utm_content=buffer5d450&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

 

Democracy Suspended: What Really Happened at the Brighton Labour AGM?

 

In September 2015, a week after Jeremy Corbyn was elected Labour leader, I joined the Labour party in Brighton and Hove. I had voted Labour throughout the 1980s and into the 1990s but drifted away from the party during the Blair years. In 2012 I joined the Green party, which was strong in Brighton and seemed more likely to oppose austerity than Ed Miliband’s Labour. But after Corbyn’s inspirational campaign and election it was clear to me that the real fight for democratic socialism in this country was within Labour.

 

That fight would not be easy. In Brighton, for example, the local party was dominated by a small but powerful clique of right-wing Progress supporters led by the Labour council leader Warren Morgan, and the newly elected Labour MP Peter Kyle – both of whom publicly supported Liz Kendall’s candidacy for leader. But at the same time the party was attracting thousands of new members, enthused by Corbyn and what he stands for. I felt that over time the ordinary party members would assert themselves and, using the accepted democratic procedures, be elected to leading positions in the local party.

 

But history repeats itself, first as tragedy, then as farce. If the attempted coup mounted by a majority of the parliamentary Labour party (PLP) against Corbyn is a tragedy (and a crime), then the mini-coup now mounted by the PLP’s satraps in Brighton and within the official Labour machine is a farce, though a very unamusing one.

 

It began when the party’s 2016 annual general meeting (AGM) was called for Saturday 9 July. Nominations were sought for candidates to the branch executive – for chair, secretary, treasurer, two vice-chairs and five ordinary members. This was the first time the entire local party had a chance to express its wishes on the executive since Corbyn’s election last year. It would also be a verdict delivered on Corbyn by the largest Labour party branch in the UK, with over 6,000 members.

 

The ‘slate’ for the executive put up by Corbyn supporters was an inclusive group of members, most of whom had been in the party for many years, including Greg Hadfield, who had held senior posts on the executive before. Another slate of candidates stood for the executive under the title ‘We are Labour’. Their political views were fuzzy but they appeared to have the support of the Morgan-Kyle axis of the local party and to generally not support Corbyn.

 

Following the PLP’s manoeuvres against Corbyn and relentless pressure on him to resign, a pro-Corbyn rally organised by Brighton & Hove Momentum was scheduled for 2pm on 9 July in the Brighthelm community centre. The AGM itself was scheduled to begin at 4pm at City College down the road.

 

The Brighthelm’s main hall can hold, at most, 400. Rally organisers thought that would be sufficient, but at least 700 people showed up. A hands-up poll showed that the vast majority were Labour members intending to go to the AGM. Judging by the range of speakers from the floor, my personal impression of the rally was that it was a classic Labour gathering – teachers, care workers, local government workers, trade unionists, many pensioners (mostly women, I noticed), no obvious ‘Trots’ at all. Also a good number of younger members, including my own 19 year old daughter who joined Labour last year – the first political party or group she has ever been in.

 

The rally was addressed by several speakers, including Greg Hadfield, local UNISON and NUT representatives, and Seema Chandwani – the secretary of Tottenham Labour constituency Labour party (CLP) – who offered the benefit of her experience as a BME female secretary of a large CLP who had successfully struggled to overturn the stranglehold of a reactionary right-wing clique in her constituency. (After the rally Seema was later verbally abused in a pub and told to “Fuck off out of Brighton” by people who seemed to know who she is and what she had come to Brighton for – the only actual case of confirmed abuse on the day I am aware of.)

 

So many members turned up to the rally that not everyone could get in, and some speakers had to go outside to address the overflow. The rally was good-humoured and even-tempered, with speakers emphasising that no matter what provocation might arise at the AGM or how angry people were about the attempt to remove Jeremy Corbyn, they should be polite and respectful at all times. After the rally closed at 3pm many hundreds of Labour members walked down to City College to participate in the AGM and to vote for those candidates who supported the current Labour leader.

 

Me and my daughter arrived at approximately 3.40pm. It was immediately apparent that there were simply too many people attending to fit into the City College meeting hall, which holds about 250-300. There was a queue out of the hall, down through the building and out the door, and growing. Members were obviously concerned that they might not get in to cast their vote. However, at no point did I see or hear any member in the queue raise their voice or abuse or criticise City College staff who were faced with a difficult situation. On the contrary, the queue was orderly and polite.

 

I was not aware until later that, by lucky coincidence, I had arrived at exactly the right time and place to witness what is now known as the ‘spitting incident’ – and indeed I might have witnessed it had it taken place. But it didn’t. When I arrived a member of City College staff had locked the doors as he said the main hall was full. It was unclear on whose instructions he had done this, and it was pointed out to him that locking the doors actually endangered the health and safety of those inside.

 

It’s not entirely clear what happened to change this decision – it appeared to be an intervention by a more senior member of staff – but a few minutes later the doors were unlocked and orderly procession into the building continued. I entered and proceeded slowly in the queue up the main stairs to the first floor. I saw and heard no incident of any kind. There was no noise from below to indicate an incident had occurred, which there surely would have been had someone spat in someone else’s face. On the first floor I looked over the balcony to the entrance and could only see a peaceful and orderly queue.

 

Later, after the AGM, some of the local party who opposed the pro-Corbyn candidates began to tweet that a member of City College had been spat at during this time, yet many in the queue at this time have reported that they saw and heard nothing of the sort. Prominent among those who claimed, via Twitter, that a spitting incident had taken place was Labour council leader Warren Morgan, who I did not see in the queue at the time, or in the meeting I attended inside. Later that evening he tweeted that he was “saddened that our MP Peter Kyle and our party organiser were abused at the AGM today, and I’m sorry that venue staff were spat on.”

 

 

I do not know why Cllr Morgan tweeted this or what evidence he had to believe it. He made no attempt to bring a formal complaint to the newly-elected executive, even though he also tweeted that he hoped it “…would investigate and expel the member responsible.” The police have not been contacted about the ‘incident’. No-one has asked to see CCTV footage except the member accused, who has demanded it be produced in order to exonerate him. The member concerned has also submitted a complaint to Labour party secretary Iain McNicol about Warren Morgan for perpetuating inaccurate and slanderous allegations, and for bringing the Labour party into disrepute.

 

After about 20 minutes of queuing – during which time my daughter and I had advanced inside and up the stairs, but not entered the main hall – at about 4.05pm the then-branch chair Lloyd Russell-Moyle made an announcement (repeated several times as he went down the queue) that because of the overspill there would not be one AGM meeting but two and possibly three, one after the other. The first meeting had begun and he apologised that those not yet inside would have to wait. All the meetings would be addressed briefly by the candidates for the five main executive posts, and then voting would commence. Two emergency motions put to the AGM – one to support Jeremy Corbyn, one to ask he step down – would not be taken, as that would mean the meetings would go on for too long.

 

Although those members, such as myself, who did not get into the first meeting had to wait longer, and in quite stuffy heat, the reaction to Lloyd’s announcement was remarkably calm and understanding. No-one raised their voice or complained. Most were relieved they would, eventually, get into the meeting and be allowed to cast their vote. Me and my daughter joined a separate queue for our local ward and received our papers for the next meeting, and then retired to the side to allow others to do the same. People gave up seating space for older members. At that time I saw Hove’s Labour MP Peter Kyle talking to members in the queue. He was laughing and joking with those he spoke to, and although it is probable that many members disagreed with his position on Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership the atmosphere was pleasant and non-confrontational. As far as I know, Kyle himself has not claimed he was subject to abuse at the AGM.

 

At approximately 4.45pm the first meeting ended and the doors were opened to allow members to enter the second meeting. Everyone who had queued patiently filed forward and entered the main hall. My personal experience is of this second meeting, although reports from the other meetings are consistent that they went off as well as the second one. My oldest daughter, who had arrived at the venue early, attended the first meeting and reported that it went smoothly, with the candidates making brief speeches, to which the audience listened respectfully. There was apparently more applause for those candidates supporting Corbyn, not surprisingly as there were more members present who supported Corbyn than did not. The members at the first meeting then exited through the car park as other members came in.

 

In the second meeting, as with the first, the candidates gave brief speeches. All were listened to in silence. There were no jeers or adverse comments of any kind. Again, Corbyn-supporting candidates received more enthusiastic applause, reflecting the feeling of the majority there, but nothing untoward or intimidatory. There was no heckling at this meeting. Again voting took place, after which members left through the car park. As I left I had a brief friendly chat with a Brighton Labour councillor (who did not support the Corbyn slate) and we both agreed how well the meetings had gone and that the local party could congratulate itself on having provided members the opportunity to participate and vote, despite the logistical difficulties.

 

The truly extraordinary thing about the AGM(s) was the extremely well organised, polite and respectful the manner in which it was carried out, and which make the later claims made about it such a travesty of justice. The atmosphere throughout was cordial and good-natured. The subsequent ballot count was conducted by party members who supported different sets of candidates. No complaints were made from either side about the integrity of the voting or count.

 

The later suggestion that the meeting put members’ safety at risk is ridiculous. Nobody claimed this at the time. At no time was the safety of members even remotely put at risk, and the allegation that it was – an allegation still unseen, if it exists at all – does not explain in what manner their safety was supposedly put at risk.

 

The results of the election came in later in the evening and the next day. The Corbyn-supporting candidates won all the main posts on the executive and could therefore command a ‘majority’ on the executive. The victorious candidates had secured over 60% of the vote, with the new secretary Greg Hadfield securing 66% of the vote. Greg’s first act as new secretary was to put out a request for members to assist the outgoing chair, Lloyd Russell Moyle, in his council by-election contest in East Brighton. He also emphasised that he and the new executive wished to work with all within the party, and he exchanged several amicable Twitter messages with those who had opposed him and the other winning candidates.

 

The matter of the AGM and the election seemed to be over. But on the evening of Thursday 14 July the Labour party disputes panel issued a statement, without first informing the new branch executive, that it had received ‘many’ complaints (though the actual number remains unspecified) about the conduct of the meeting, alleging “…abusive behaviour by some attendees, as well as reports that the ballot results were not properly reached.” It added that it was “…particularly concerned that the safety of members at the meeting was compromised.” As a result the disputes panel decided, with no investigation of any of these matters, to suspend the entire Brighton & Hove party immediately and also to cancel the results of the AGM. Members were informed there would be a new AGM “at a later date.” For the moment, and we assume until at least after the leadership election, not only is there no local party democracy, there is no local party at all.

 

A day later the members of Brighton & Hove party received an e-mail from ‘Brighton & Hove District Labour’ (with no personal signature) that repeated verbatim the statement of the disputes panel. At no time did the disputes panel communicate with the new executive or attempt to discover the credibility of the allegations before closing the largest local Labour branch in the country and revoking the election of a new executive by a large majority of local members. Many are wondering at the panel’s motivations for taking this action, the evidence on which they have based their decision, and if it would have done so if the election for the executive had produced a different result.

 

The suspension of the party was widely reported in the media, usually with headlines about ‘bullying’ and ‘abuse’. It is my belief that the allegations made about the conduct of the AGM have no basis in fact. Nothing I saw or experienced at, before or after the AGM supports the allegations. The indirect legitimacy given to the allegations by the actions of Labour’s disputes panel – and the subsequent reporting of the AGM in the national press – are a gross slander on the members who took part, and particularly on the large majority who voted for the winning candidates.

 

Clearly I was not everywhere and did not see everything. But I have spoken to friends and family who were at the rally, in the queue at City College, and at all three meetings. Not one reports a different experience than mine. The overwhelming reports and feedback from the event was that, in spite of logistical difficulties, it went off extremely well, and was a credit to the Labour party. When asked his view on BBC News, Peter Kyle MP – who Warren Morgan claimed was abused at the AGM – replied that “if” abuses had taken place “on the margins” then these had to be investigated, indicating that he himself does not support the main allegations.

 

The number and credibility of any complaints remains unknown. At the moment no-one in the Brighton & Hove Labour party has even been informed what those allegations are. In the circumstances, there is a very good chance they are trivial, vexatious and politically-motivated. Yet on this basis the largest Labour CLP in the country has been shut down and the results of a transparently fair election, which returned candidates supportive of Jeremy Corbyn to the senior posts of the local executive, has been annulled.

 

For the moment the democratic wishes of Brighton & Hove Labour members have been overturned. That will not last. Like the bigger coup against Jeremy Corbyn, the smaller coup in Brighton is already disintegrating under its own ineptitude. Eventually the AGM will take place, monitored by Labour HQ officials, and it will pass off as quietly as the first one did. The result will be the same. The party can then begin to fully support and campaign for the anti-austerity, pro-public ownership policies supported by Jeremy Corbyn, John McDonnell and the vast majority of Labour members.

[RoboRiise]

This is well worth a read - Lilian Greenwood's speech to her consituency party explaining why she resigned from the shadow cabinet and has no confidence in Corbyn.

 

http://www.liliangreenwood.co.uk/lilian_s_speech_to_nottingham_south_labour_party_members

 

I don't see a plotter there.  I see exactly what I want to see in an MP; someone who cares passionately about the policy area she specialises in and the constituency she represents.  Perhaps she's the only one and all the others really are just involved in a dastardly plot, or perhaps she's just being honest in saying that Corbyn is a good man but an appalling leader.

[Jairzinho]

This is well worth a read - Lilian Greenwood's speech to her consituency party explaining why she resigned from the shadow cabinet and has no confidence in Corbyn.

 

http://www.liliangreenwood.co.uk/lilian_s_speech_to_nottingham_south_labour_party_members

 

I don't see a plotter there.  I see exactly what I want to see in an MP; someone who cares passionately about the policy area she specialises in and the constituency she represents.  Perhaps she's the only one and all the others really are just involved in a dastardly plot, or perhaps she's just being honest in saying that Corbyn is a good man but an appalling leader.

 

Like absolutely no-one has said, you mean?

[RoboRiise]

Like absolutely no-one has said, you mean?

 

Absolutely no-one has said that what we have here is a coup being orchestrated by a faction of the party detertmined to remain mired in Blairite 'red tory' labour-lite policies, with the people who have come out as being against Corbyn's leadership either being in that group or tacitly supporting them, rather than them sincerely thinking Corbyn is just a waste of space as party leader, irrespective of their view on actual policy?

 

Absolutely no-one has said that?

 

You haven't said it, nor did I suggest that you did.  I'm fucked if I'm going back through 140+ pages to post quotes mate but this thread is filled with it.  It certainly was back when the mass resignations (of which Greenwood's was one) happened.

 

I was however not confining the observation to this thread, or indeed this forum and yes, I've seen that particular angle pushed over and over again in the last few weeks.

[Jairzinho]

Absolutely no-one has said that what we have here is a coup being orchestrated by a faction of the party detertmined to remain mired in Blairite 'red tory' labour-lite policies, with the people who have come out as being against Corbyn's leadership either being in that group or tacitly supporting them, rather than them sincerely thinking Corbyn is just a waste of space as party leader, irrespective of their view on actual policy?

 

Absolutely no-one has said that?

 

You haven't said it, nor did I suggest that you did.  I'm fucked if I'm going back through 140+ pages to post quotes mate but this thread is filled with it.  It certainly was back when the mass resignations (of which Greenwood's was one) happened.

 

I was however not confining the observation to this thread, or indeed this forum and yes, I've seen that particular angle pushed over and over again in the last few weeks.

 

Well, you've changed the description of what "was said" now, and left no room for the grey area in between what probably sums up most of the MPs, and in fact most of the opinions from people who support Corbyn on those MPs. You made out like there were loads who think all 172 MPs that gave a vote of no confidence were doing so because they're all Blairites. I should stress that I've no doubt that are a small number of people, who are possibly quite vocal on twatter, that do think this. They aren't representative of people that support Corbyn, in much the same way that Ben Bradshaw isn't representative of the 172 MPs that had a vote of no confidence in Corbyn.

 

Have many said it looks like a coup organised by Blairites? Yes, of course they have, and with good reason. It doesn't mean that all of those who have been swept along are Blairites, many clearly aren't. Many clearly have legitimate grievances. Whether washing this dirty linen in public is particularly helpful or not is a different discussion. Many simply don't think Corbyn is a competent leader. Again, completely fair. He isn't a particularly good leader. Lots of people who support him recognise this but see it as the least worst option, don't see the replacements as being particularly competent either, and/or have no interest in the Labour party being led by someone on the right. 

 

I guess I got a bit defensive mainly out of annoyance that it's the sort of line spun by the press. That people who support Corbyn think he is without flaw, and that all those within the party that don't support him are Red Tories. It allows them to paint all Corbyn supporters as radical, hard left, possibly aggressive, revolutionary, etc. Every single aspect of this is more nuanced than the press shows, and I'm finding it fucking depressing.

[RoboRiise]

I guess I got a bit defensive mainly out of annoyance that it's the sort of line spun by the press. That people who support Corbyn think he is without flaw, and that all those within the party that don't support him are Red Tories. It allows them to paint all Corbyn supporters as radical, hard left, possibly aggressive, revolutionary, etc. Every single aspect of this is more nuanced than the press shows, and I'm finding it fucking depressing.

 

I'm only quoting that section in isolation because I think it's especially pertinent. I agree completely that the situation is far more nuanced than the press are suggesting (come to that pretty much any situation I can name is more nuanced than the British press present it as being) and in the same way that I'm sure someone such as yourself who is broadly supportive of Corbyn is tired of being portrayed as a mindless trotskyite drone willing to follow him to the ends of the earth, I'm sick of being portrayed as someone who would probably vote for Michael Portillo if he wore a red tie just because I don't think the guy has much in the way of leadership qualities.

 

The fact that both of those highly polarised sides are being drawn broad-brush by the press so that they can reduce the level of debate to shirts vs skins is the real problem for sure and yeah as you may have noticed I'm also finding it both depressing and infuriating in equal measure.

 

Interestingly I do think it's unintentionally highlighting one of the reasons I'm finding it hard to be supportive of Corbyn - we all know that this kind of dumbed-down shite is the antithesis of what he wants politics to be but unfortunately it's what we have and I'm not seeing anything that's going to change it as long as there are mongs out there willing to lap it up.  Trouble is, although I can't really hide my contempt for that sector of society, there are undoubtedly people within it who Labour will need to vote for them if we're ever going to shift this cabal of throwbacks currently running the country.

 

Corbyn and Momentum are clearly doing a very good job of engaging with younger voters, the digital natives.  Sooner or later though they're going to need to work on the traditional Labour voters because it's a numbers game and nobody can win an electon with the under 30s.  I don't see them energising those people with blogs and twitter.  Half of them only have the most basic understanding of those channels.  I also don't see them energising them if they shoot themselves in the foot as Lilian Greenwood suggested they did with her policy area.  I can understand why she was so angry because it's all about siezing the moment and using the communication channels that you need to use to reach those people which sadly is the tabloids and maybe the six o'clock news.

 

That's one of the things that concerns me the most; the party members do seem to have a very good idea of what Labour have been doing in the last 10 months which goes some way towards explaining the strong support for Corbyn, but honestly I don't have much of a clue and I'm someone who at least reads decent papers, isn't afraid of spending a little time looking at politics blogs and actually thinks about things.  I'm not trying to make out that any of that is a big deal, it isn't at all, but it's still more meaningful engagement than well over half the people I know.  If I try starting a discussion about pretty much anything with a lower profile than brexit on my team at work for example, there's one lad who can actually give a nunaced opinion and has some deeper understanding (often more than I do to be honest) and he's a Labour party member and union rep.  The other nine of them, I might as well go next door and talk to the cat.

 

All nine of them are going to vote though so even their dimwitted opinions matter.  I already gave one of them both barrels the day after the EU referendum after listening to ten minutes of her mong-faced fucking raving about 'not feeling british' and being 'scared for her country' as justification for her out vote, to the point where my manager had to tell me to can it.  I'm scared I'll actually give one of them a slap if I have to walk in this October, or in 2020, or whenever and find out that one of them voted tory because they bought all this shit about Labour basically wanting a bolshevik revolution.

 

Smith won't solve a fucking thing even if he does win the contest by some miracle.  It's a complete fucking mess.  Those comments from Lilian Greenwood about an almost complete lack of awareness of how the game has to be played and the fact that policies are adopted, changed and dropped seemingly on a whim aren't the only ones I've seen though, enough to think there's at least some truth in them.  I think part of it is that Corbyn simply isn't used to being as guarded about what he says as a leader needs to be - every single word uttered in public needs to be carefully planned, otherwise a throwaway comment or thinking out loud about some policy area or other becomes a definitive statement of it and causes a diluted message.  It's unfortunate that his intelligence makes him probably better suited to exactly the kind of nuanced discussion that will be wasted on a decent proportion of the people whose votes he needs to attract but he can't change the people - he has to change the message and the delivery.

[sir roger]

Bit of a farce on the Daily Politics show where the hostess says they have figures suggesting the new voters are 60/40 for Owen Smith but then after a minute or two's debate on what that does to the dynamic, she apologises and says that actually it is the other way around.

[Jairzinho]

Forgive my lack of a lengthy reply, but, agreed.

 

The media are hateful, and a lot of the population are clueless, and they're obviously inextricably linked.

 

As for the Labour party specifically, I think we're going to get a bit more closure/clarity after the leadership election. Whether that comes in the form of a split and/or some MPs deciding that actively working against their twice elected leader, whatever they may think of him, isn't going to help with anything.

[Sugar Ape]

Some mad shit getting flung around. Tickled me this and I hope it's true. Just seen this on Twitter from St Helens MP Conor McGinn ( yeah I've never heard of him either):

 

 

 

.@jeremycorbyn Did you threaten to ring my Dad - who you don't know - to 'get him to talk to me' after reading my @theHouse_mag interview?

 

My Dad was Sinn Féin councillor. When I - as a Labour MP - challenged Jeremy, he demanded an apology and said he was going to ring my Dad.

[sir roger]

It's a pity Corbyn can't phone Hilary Benn's dad.

[VladimirIlyich]

I think its fair to say that when there are large scale resignations some of those people simply follow the herd and do it because they feel they have to to keep the contacts they have built up and dont wish to rock the boat,especially the less experienced ones.

Lets make one thing clear here and that is that us 'Corbynistas' respect both the man and his policies throughout his career and his voting record but if there was a candidate with similar policies and beliefs who was at least a decade younger then we,well me anyway,would most likely vote for them for the sake of a longer term plan for the party. The fact that there arent any candidates like this pretty much reinforces us tradional voters and our complete disillusionment at the way the party has been steered in recent times. We have a leader supported and proposed by its members and ordinary people versus opponents sponsored by Morgan Stanley,or similar,and a gang of self interested colleagues. Not much of a choice in terms of who to support for me.

[RoboRiise]

Forgive my lack of a lengthy reply, but, agreed.

 

The media are hateful, and a lot of the population are clueless, and they're obviously inextricably linked.

 

As for the Labour party specifically, I think we're going to get a bit more closure/clarity after the leadership election. Whether that comes in the form of a split and/or some MPs deciding that actively working against their twice elected leader, whatever they may think of him, isn't going to help with anything.

 

I agree, no matter what happens in this leadership contest it has to be an end to things.  Either the PLP accept that he's the leader and try to work with him to address what they see as the problems so far (delivery not policy, a good leader will allow them to help shape policy but ultimately it has to reflect the membership's wishes) or they accept that they cannot work with him under any circumstances and resign, leave and set up a new party, whatever they feel is right for them.  We can't have a situation where the Corbyn challenge becomes an annual event.

[Gnasher]

Eagle at it again saying that the Police told her to cancel any constituency surgeries , forcing the police to make a statement that they gave security advice

at her request but that the decision to cancel the surgeries was hers and not within police remit. Sadiq Khan has criticised Eagle for the move.

 

Oh dear,

 

 

Take a look

 

 

 

@offcentrenews's Tweet: https://twitter.com/offcentrenews/status/756256324187480064?s=09

[Bobby Hundreds]

What's the saying.. a lie travels the length of the world while the truth is still putting it's boots on. You don't need to be honest in politics just use the media to peddle lies. Shit sticks or enough of it will at the least turn people's noses away from truth.

[Gym Beglin]

This is well worth a read - Lilian Greenwood's speech to her consituency party explaining why she resigned from the shadow cabinet and has no confidence in Corbyn.

 

http://www.liliangreenwood.co.uk/lilian_s_speech_to_nottingham_south_labour_party_members

 

I don't see a plotter there.  I see exactly what I want to see in an MP; someone who cares passionately about the policy area she specialises in and the constituency she represents.  Perhaps she's the only one and all the others really are just involved in a dastardly plot, or perhaps she's just being honest in saying that Corbyn is a good man but an appalling leader.

Fuck that, read the Brighton Hove account post above yours and ask yourself if this is about personalities, leadership or politics.

[Gnasher]

What's the saying.. a lie travels the length of the world while the truth is still putting it's boots on. You don't need to be honest in politics just use the media to peddle lies. Shit sticks or enough of it will at the least turn people's noses away from truth.

That's the problem, the headline lie is in all the papers and was on the bbc. They claim the narrative and the truth gets buried until the next half baked story. Journalists now show zero attempt to even try to find the truth before they run their stories.

[Gnasher]

Some mad shit getting flung around. Tickled me this and I hope it's true. Just seen this on Twitter from St Helens MP Conor McGinn ( yeah I've never heard of him either):

.@jeremycorbyn Did you threaten to ring my Dad - who you don't know - to 'get him to talk to me' after reading my @theHouse_mag interview?

My Dad was Sinn Féin councillor. When I - as a Labour MP - challenged Jeremy, he demanded an apology and said he was going to ring my Dad.

 

Please don't tell my dad on me.

[Gnasher]

Eagle at it again saying that the Police told her to cancel any constituency surgeries , forcing the police to make a statement that they gave security advice at her request but that the decision to cancel the surgeries was hers and not within police remit. Sadiq Khan has criticised Eagle for the move.

Move trident to the Mersey to protect her office, throw in a few surface to air missiles and an SaS base. Only solution.

[Sugar Ape]

Who knows what happened in Brighton? There are always two sides to every story and I think in Brighton, and possibly in Wallasy, they won't find evidence of intimidation but I think they will ban some people for entryism/not sharing Labour values. It interests me entryism, I read the Michael Crick book on Militant ages ago and finally got round to reading the Peter North one the other day which I thought was more balanced. It's surprising how few people it can take to influence the decisions of a CLP.

 

https://medium.com/@Brightonian/entryism-on-sea-2e2d0616d8d4#.1mladtoe4

 

Brighton, Hove & District Labour and the Alliance for Workers Liberty

 

 

‘Entryism-on-Sea’

 

Brighton, Hove & District Labour and the Alliance for Workers Liberty

 

Over the past year a great deal has been written about so-called ‘entryism’ into the Labour Party – members and supporters of other parties or groups joining the party to influence its leadership and direction. Since the doors to the party were thrown open during last year’s leadership contest there has been a steady stream of stories about Conservatives and others paying their £3 and voting, and the attempts of the Labour Party to identify and expel those ‘members’ who don’t share our values.

 

There is a darker side to ‘entryism,’ however, than a few thousand opportunist Tories making mischief over the Labour leadership – a darker side with echoes of the Militant infiltration of the party in the 1980s. This is a story of fringe leftwing groups insinuating their way into local parties and attempting to force their agenda – explicitly revolutionary and contemptuous of parliamentary democracy – onto the Labour Party. Groups like the Alliance for Workers Liberty, a Trotskyist sect committed to revolution which grew out of the Militant Tendency in the early 90s.

 

There have long been concerns that groups like the AWL have been attaching themselves to Momentum, the pro-Corbyn grassroots pressure group, as a way of riding the ‘Corbyn surge’ to positions of influence in the party with the aim of fulfilling their ultimate goal – a takeover of the party.

A clear example of this campaign is the example of Brighton, Hove & District Labour Party, the largest single unit of the Labour Party in the UK, and one of the AWL’s most longstanding activists, Mark Sandell – who was recently elected to the local party’s Executive Committee in a result now voided by the Labour Party over allegations of an improper ballot and the ineligibility of candidates.

 

Mr Sandell’s candidate statement ahead of the Brighton, Hove & District Labour Party AGM stated that he was a former President of the West Sussex NUT who “first joined the Labour Party in 1986.” [1] Members understandably took this to mean that Mr Sandell had been a member continuously since that time, although he later clarified during his appearance on BBC South East’s Sunday Politics show that he has been a member of the Labour Party “on and off” since that time. [2]

 

More off than on, it would appear. Searches of the website of the Alliance for Workers Liberty (www.workersliberty.org) show a history of Mr Sandell’s activism within that organisation stretching back to the early 1990s – indeed, he was known and respected enough to be nominated by comrades to the group’s National Committee in 2007.

In his nomination statement for a position on the AWL’s National Committee, he claims to have “joined the group in 1987 as a student,” [3] roughly a year after first joining the Labour Party. This particular chain of events will not be unfamiliar to those with some knowledge of the tactics of the left wing fringe, who have long seen student politics as a fertile recruiting ground for new activists to serve as loyal footsoldiers – submitting motions at Labour Clubs, manning stalls, selling socialist newspapers and generally carrying out the busy-work of political campaigning. More on this later.

 

From there, further searching reveals nearly three decades’ worth of consistent activism for the AWL. Mr Sandell claims in the above document to have “been an AWL branch organiser in Canterbury, Birmingham, Oxford and now [2007] in Brighton.” [ibid] During this time he was an active contributor to the AWL’s magazine as a writer and a serial proposer of motions to the group’s conference. The various links below place Mr Sandell as an active member (as a writer, speaker or in submitting motions to meetings) in at least 1993, 1996, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2014. [4–15] Throughout this entire period, the AWL was a proscribed organisation within the Labour Party, i.e. its members were banned from being Labour members, and has sponsored candidates standing against Labour candidates under the banner of TUSC and the Socialist Alliance, for whom his fellow BHDLP candidate Phil Clarke stood against Labour in 2005, 2007, 2013 and 2015. Either Mr Sandell was not a Labour Party member during this period or he was breaking party rules by simultaneously being a member of the AWL.

 

Indeed, Mr Sandell was an active member of the AWL as late as 2015, when his name appears as a contributor in an edition of Workers’ Liberty Teachers published only months before the election of Jeremy Corbyn as leader of the Labour Party. [15] If he was still a Labour member at this time, he was in clear breach of the rules.

 

A few months later in September 2015, just after the election of Jeremy Corbyn as Labour leader, the AWL formally wound up as a political party in an attempt to get around its longstanding proscription – that is to say to allow its members to join (or, as in Mr Sandell’s case, re-join) Labour. This attempt did not go unchallenged by the Labour NEC, with several former AWL activists expelled from the party in October. [16] Nevertheless, with plenty of reports at the time that the party’s compliance unit was overwhelmed by the sheer volume of new members, the potential for members of proscribed groups being missed and remaining as members of the Labour Party into 2016 was high. Indeed, anticipating the likely attempts to expel members of proscribed groups from the party, the AWL’s own policy platform calls for it to “retain at least a small core of people aligned with our politics who ‘play safe’ so that they can be confident of not being swept out of the Labour Party by a backlash at the next stage.”

 

Members like Mark Sandell.

 

Why does this matter? It matters because despite being formally wound up as a political party, the AWL held a full conference a mere two months later on 21–22 November 2015. At this conference, the group adopted three documents, entitled -

 

After the Corbyn Surge

 

The Next 12 Months

 

Student Activity 2015–16

 

These documents outline a concerted strategy for members of the AWL to infiltrate (or, to use the language of the documents, “intervene”) in the Labour Party with the explicit intention of influencing the party to indoctrinate “more people of revolutionary socialist ideas,” “advance and transform the wider labour movement” and to focus “on drawing in, organising, propagandising among, and recruiting among, the new people (especially the new young people) mobilised by the Corbyn surge.” [17]

 

The reference in the above to “young people” is instructive, given that the document ‘Student Activity 2015–16' outlines a specific plan to infiltrate university Labour Clubs to revolutionary socialist politics, with the aim of “organis[ing] and politically hegomon[ising] these people.” [18] This is a longstanding tactic of the fringe left as far back as 1987 when Mr Sandell, by his own. admission, joined the AWL as a student only a year after “first” joining the Labour Party. Indeed, the document ‘After the Corbyn Surge’ spells out this priority – “youth work is particularly important for renewing the movement and for convincing a new generation of socialists.” [17]

 

These documents clearly demonstrate a concerted effort by the AWL – less than 12 months ago a proscribed group who’s members were constitutionally barred from joining the Labour Party – to gain influence within local parties and student groups, to “consolidate leftwing victories” by “winning officer roles and policy votes,” to “break the right [of the Labour Party] quickly” and engage in local parties by “circulat[ing] motions, blogposts and literature.” [18] Going further, the adopted platform of the AWL as of November was that “all AWL members should be members of the Labour Party unless specifically agreed; doing Labour Party work of some kind should be the norm,” “in every area and at every level.” [17]

 

This campaign continues – the July issue of the AWL’s newspaper Solidarity splashes the headline ‘Flood the Labour Party’ [19] with a call for members to step up their infiltration (or “intervention”) into the party. Only this week, the AWL’s Twitter feed called for supporters to sign up as Labour activists to vote in its upcoming leadership contest. [20]

 

All of this is undertaken with the ultimate aim of influencing the Labour Party and its membership locally towards the politics of the AWL, a group which has consistently throughout its history demonstrated a basic contempt for parliamentary democracy and which regards even the policy platform of Jeremy Corbyn as “woolly and populist,” “relatively weak and piecemeal.” [17] The group’s platform calls for Labour councils, like the one in Brighton & Hove, to “refuse to implement cuts” – that is, to set illegal budgets that would bring Tory-run DCLG bureaucrats into city hall to run the city and the deselection of MPs. Mr Sandell himself has argued for the deselection of Labour councillors in Brighton & Hove in the past. [8]

 

Mr Sandell began appearing at local party meetings shortly after these documents were adopted, busying himself proposing several pro-forma motions scribed by fringe groups at branch-level Labour Party meetings, and latterly stood as a candidate for Chair of the BHDLP at its AGM, backed by Momentum – a group who’s Haringey branch was founded by one of the AWL members expelled from Labour in October and which has long been the subject of concern that concern that “hard-left groups such as Left Unity, the Socialist Workers party (SWP), the Socialist party and the AWL are trying to attach themselves to Momentum to gain entry into the party.” [16]

 

A number of members attending the BHDLP’s AGM on 9 July had concerns about the background of this relatively unknown quantity, however due to the large numbers in attendance at that meeting it was not possible for members to put these questions to candidates. Subsequent concerns were dismissed by Greg Hadfield, who stood as secretary at the AGM. Given Mr Hadfield's background as a former Fleet Street journalist it seems unlikely he played the role of a “useful idiot” when only a brief Google search would have revealed the true nature of Mr Sandell’s involvement with the AWL.

 

Mr Sandell does appear to have some questions to answer as to his status as a member of the AWL, a group that stood candidates against the Labour Party and doesn’t share its fundamental commitment to parliamentary democracy. As a self-styled “revolutionary socialist” group that has explicitly endorsed a platform of entryism into Labour comparable to the Militant tendency of the 1980s, the prospect of AWL infiltration into the Labour Party, up to and including the Chairmanship of the largest single unit of the party in the country, is extremely serious.

 

Sources

 

[1] https://medium.com/@GregHadfield/mark-sandell-candidate-for-chair-4e5f1bd3c8ec#.7jekytvvm

 

[2] http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b07k17n8/sunday-politics-south-east-17072016

 

[3] https://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.workersliberty.org/system/files/fscache/96/B3/96B3E464&sa=U&ved=0ahUKEwid0MLI0f_NAhXpFZoKHWNlDuI4KBAWCA4wBA&client=internal-uds-cse&usg=AFQjCNFoF4D4uChsLbfkVUQZb6mjP1etAA

 

[4] http://www.workersliberty.org/story/2013/11/05/socialism-cpa-and-facebook

 

[5] http://www.workersliberty.org/system/files/NO27.pdf

 

[6] – http://www.workersliberty.org/node/204

 

[7] – http://www.workersliberty.org/node/1398

 

[8] – http://www.workersliberty.org/node/3487

 

[9] – http://www.workersliberty.org/node/1765

 

[10] – http://www.workersliberty.org/node/3561

 

[11] – http://www.workersliberty.org/node/7797

 

[12] – http://www.workersliberty.org/story/2008/02/09/how-first-starbucks-strike-was-made

 

[13] http://www.workersliberty.org/story/2009/03/12/disputediscussion-nationalist-strike-inconvenient-truth

 

[14] http://www.workersliberty.org/story/2011/07/12/solidarity-zimbabweans-facing-treason-trial

 

[15] http://www.workersliberty.org/system/files/tys1.pdf

 

[16] http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/oct/23/unite-challenges-expulsion-of-alleged-trotskyists-from-labour-party

 

[17] http://www.workersliberty.org/node/26057

 

[18] http://www.workersliberty.org/node/26059

 

[19] http://www.workersliberty.org/system/files/411.pdf

 

[20] https://mobile.twitter.com/workersliberty/status/755745527812063232

[Sugar Ape]

Here's a link to that Peter North book on Militant in Liverpool. Only short but well worth a read.

 

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Militant-Liverpool-City-Diane-Frost/dp/1846318637

[Gnasher]

The increasingly ludicrous Jess Phillips when Eagle pulled out on twitter

 

'it's obvious the labour party has a problem with women, the tories have had two women prime ministers we hold our women back, blah blah Corbyn to blame, Eagle would've been prime minister if she wasn't a women in the labour party blah blah blah shame

 

 

 

Fella on twitter 'were you selected by an all women shortlist"

 

 

Phillips, er yeah but'

[stringvest]

GBH was an excellent dissection of militant, and especially the likes of Degsy - and the ease in which those in real power pull the strings and dictate the agenda. I'd start with that and then you'll have about the right level of cynicism with which to approach any missive on Militant or any political movement.

[sir roger]

Up to yesterday my £25 showed on my mobile banking as ready to go ( Difference between balance shown & available funds ) but seems to have disappeared now so I may well have been designated as an enemy of the state.

 

Not had any email or text about it though. I'll probably get an obscene call off Iain McNicol later.