Saturday, May 26, 2007

Islington North CLP Nominate Brown and Harman as Leaders


Interesting – just noticed unionfutures report that Islington North CLP "arguably a contender for the leftist CLP in the UK" , whose MP Jeremy Corbyn nominated and campaigned for McDonnell. Voted at a “all members” meeting on Thursday to endorse the nomination of Brown for Leader and to nominate Harriet Harman as deputy Leader . I can’t confirm this anywhere else, the CLP website has not been updated yet. However, Andrew Berry, the CLP trade union liaison officer appears to verify this (by claiming in a “comment” that “all members” meeting are in someway “undemocratic” - hmmm?)

I think we can safely say that if somewhere like Islington North (Jeremy was comfortably reselected as their MP recently) supports Brown, then the nonsense we have been subjected to recently about the real “membership” supporting McDonnell is just wishful thinking – at best. Talk about “New Labour” spin. This is further evidence to me anyway, that the Party has really changed not just the PLP.

17 comments:

Andrew Berry said...

I leave you to decide if 51 out of 700 members are representative of the CLP! However just to correct you I have stood down as CLP TU liaison officer for personal reasons, assuming my personal reasons are sorted out and depending on who else is standing I would hope to re-stand again next year.

John Gray said...

Sorry for being inaccurate on that, I was just going on what you have mentioned in the past and what is on the CLP website (you're down as job share).

Both of us obviously have nothing better to do on a Bank holiday Saturday, but I have just left this comment on unionfutures

"how can all member meetings not be democratic? How many contested elections are there in wards to be GC delegates? Did anyone stand against you in your branch to be the UNISON CLP delegate?

Finally, how many votes did Brown and Harman get (and the other DL candidates?)

Anonymous said...

John, comrade, not sure where you are on this one. I think we only have one candidate as leader so the CLP would be unable to nominate anyone else. Not sure if Harman is that significant either. All the candidates are vey keen to distance themselves from the past or at least give that impression. Only Blears and Johnson represent any form of Blair continuation. The Campaign Group seem to be all over the place over Dep. Leader so i wouldn't read too much into this. Besides if a local MP is overtly backing one candidate and the CLP support other does that really say anything about support for that MP amongst members. Might remind you of that on Thursday!Think you may be using this evidence to fit into your arguement rather than the other way round.

John Gray said...

Richard, comrade, I think the interesting thing about Brown’s nomination is the “arguably a contender for the leftist CLP in the UK" makes a conscious decision to nominate him (there has been quite a voracious argument that CLP's should not nominate Brown either as a stub over his refusal to make his supporters nominate McDonnell or a protest over the direction of the Party). I think this decision tells us something about the membership. As my best mate ever, comrade grim said “why in God;s name are they nominating Brown? Surely the less CLPs nominate the better.......”

An anon commentator on union futures posted that at the Islington North CLP “all members” meeting the vote was "Harman 20, Cruddas 20, Benn 10 and a couple for the rest between them". Quite a clear lead?

On Thursday West Ham CLP will hold an all members meeting on the leadership elections. Regardless of our local MP’s views I suspect that the CLP will nominate Brown (by a significant majority). Loyalty to the new leader will be a factor, but I think that he would have won by a similar majority in a contested nomination. Deputy leader is more open.

Anonymous said...

Hi John

havn't heard the idea about not nominating Brown- rearranging the deckchairs...? With West Ham I meant the Dep. Leader. I suspect Brown will get unanimity. The attempt to leaflet for Harman (which i didn't see and was only told about the next day) was viewed by some members,and not just the usual suspects, as a bit tacky

Regards

Richard

John Gray said...

rearranging the deckchairs...?

Yeah, there are a few “cut off your nose to spite your face” arguments about not nominating Brown floating about.

Completely missed any mention of a “leaflet” for Harman last week? Come to think about it, I’m actually surprised that there wasn’t anyone out handing leaflets on behalf of particular candidates? Certainly, if this was a trade union election, we would have been stuffed with election addresses while trying to get into the meeting? Can’t see any harm in this? (As long as all the candidates had opportunity to have someone standing outside handing things out?)

Tim McLoughlin said...

As a Branch Chair in INCLP I'd like to add that the CLP is made up of more than just Campaign Group supporters. It just seems to me that perhaps the Campaign Group has had the largest support but I'd like to think I was a member of a CLP with more than one view.

I like to support the Labour Government as I think it is important that Labour and not the Tories are in power though some of my comrades locally don't do so as enthusiastically as I do. That is all part of a democratic organisation and I'm as entitled to my view as anyone else. It would have been interesting to see the results in INCLP if there was a Brown McDonnel vote.

John Gray said...

Good point Tim. It show’s that reputations can be wrong. Also, I think you are right, it would have been interesting to see what a result would have been in a Brown/McDonnell vote – I think Brown would have walked it in CLP's such as IN.

Anonymous said...

"I think we can safely say that if somewhere like Islington North (Jeremy was comfortably reselected as their MP recently"

did he get all branches supporting him?

Anonymous said...

Yes, all branches supported Jeremy Corbyn, apart from Timmy's branch, whose secretary "inexplicably" failed to return the results (9 to 3 in favour of JC)to the CLP secretary. One can only guess who the 3 against were.

John Gray said...

Don't know - I've asked Tim for a comment

Tim McLoughlin said...

The ballot was private but if you must know I wasn't one of the three. I don't know who was.

All I've bene trying to say is that the CLP is made up of lots of differing views as any healthy CLP should be and that the reputation that it is all CLPD or anything else isn't quite true.

It is also not very useful when people leave comments anonymously.

John Gray said...

Thanks Tim for your response. Yes, I don't understand why grown up's need to post comments anonymously on such subjects either

Leo Schulz said...

I am the secretary at Tim's branch and the failure to return the trigger ballot results was a genuine error. We held the ballot late and there were only three days to make the return.

Perhaps 'anonymous' might like to let us all know who he/she is so that we can have an open discussion? Accusations of this sort are tiresome at best, despicable at worst.

As for the 'democracy' of the Islington North CLP, there has not been a single contested ballot for a senior executive position in at least five years. Among the present executive, the internet officer and the press officer were the only ones to have been elected. Very few of them bother to circulate their names to branches for nomination and not one of them goes to the trouble of letting us know what they believe or what is their programme for the CLP. I don't know what kind of democracy that is, but it is not one that involves votes, let alone rational decisions.

Finally, Andrew Berry has no idea how the delegates to the INCLP GC would vote on anything, for the simple reason that he does not know who they are. The names of INCLP GC delegates were circulated (at my request, to branch secretaries only) in
April this year, for the first time ever. Other than in my own branch, Highbury East, it is extremely unlikely that any of the delegates were chosen by contested ballot.

Leo Schulz said...

I would just like to add that I am very unhappy about the Anonymous comment. I regard it as a malicious libel. I gave a full explanation to the INCLP Executive on the trigger ballot returns and there has never been the slightest suggestion from anyone in authority that I acted at any point in a false or dishonest manner. I have considered asking for the comment to be removed. I am letting it stand only since my refutations are being published in full and it is clearly understood that Anonymous has not offered a shred of evidence to back up his/her accusations. From the detail of the comment, it appears to have been made by someone within the branch, or on the CLP Executive. All it serves is to demonstrate the levels of behaviouw we have to put up with in the Labour Party in Islington North.

Anonymous said...

many thanks. Interesting stuff

John Gray said...

Hi Leo
Anon is clearly a "t****r" or he (and I bet it is definitely a he) would post this stuff in his own name. I am afraid that such behaviour is not unique to INCLP, there is one or two in every CLP