EXCLUSIVE: Sir Robin Wales challenges critics and claims trigger ballot ‘fix’ against him as re-selection contest looms

Blimey, is this supposed to be an Alan "Olive Branch" to the community?

Since nearly all the young, talented (and mostly female) Newham Councillors are now standing down - I think this is just a little late...

But rather bizarre and strange quotations methinks?

Hat tip article in "On London" by Journalist Dave Hill

"Newham Mayor Sir Robin Wales has urged local Labour Party critics to judge him on his record and told his critics to show that they have better policy ideas as he prepares for a selection battle that could end his 23-year leadership of the East London borough in May.

In an in-depth and often combative interview with On London, his first since the “open selection” contest was announced, Sir Robin pledged that, if he wins, his next mayoral term will be his last “no matter what” and that he would bring new councillors into his mayoral team to “give them a chance to show what they can do” as he prepared the ground for his successor.

He characterised Newham’s as “the most radical council in the country”, citing current policies on employment, housing, homelessness, education and supporting poorer residents as models that could be followed by Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, and saying that improving health care and skills would be his priorities in any fifth mayoral term.

Sir Robin also strongly defended the conduct of the 2016 “trigger ballot”, which initially saw him re-selected as Labour’s 2018 mayoral candidate by 20 votes to 17 but was later annulled following complaints and legal action by local members, claiming that the main problem was simply poor record-keeping by party volunteers and that he was the true victim of procedural irregularities.

He claimed that the outcome of the Newham Co-operative Party trigger vote in 2016, which went against him by a single vote, was “fixed” by what he said was his wrongful exclusion from casting a vote himself and by a fellow Co-op member being permitted to cast one against him despite leaving the relevant meeting before the ballot itself was held.

He also said he has evidence of invalid votes having been cast at ward branch meetings during the original trigger ballot process and that there had been, in breach of party rules, a concerted prior effort to sign up members in order to influence the outcome, leading to “about 200 votes across a number of wards” being cast against him. There were 20 individual branch ballots, resulting in nine trigger ballot “yes” votes to Sir Robin going forward automatically as mayoral candidate for 2018 and eleven “no” votes.

Sir Robin said he has written to individuals he believes were involved, informing them that “we might take you to court”. Referring to “a particular group in a community” he likened the situation to that in a neighbouring East London borough, Tower Hamlets, where Labour has a history of contending with allegations about the signing up of substantial numbers of people from among its Bangladeshi residents, who are thereby enfranchised to vote in candidate selection contest ballots but who make no other contribution to the party.

Though declining to identify the “particular group” by its ethnicity or religion, Sir Robin said the members concerned were “all men”, reiterated his long-standing disquiet over that he terms “community politics” and was keen to place on record his view that in Newham Labour “there are loads of Muslims who are progressives”.

Describing his approach as Mayor as guided by “considered risk”, he talked up the potential of the Newham-owned Red Door Ventures housing company to build new homes for market and affordable rent on the large scale required and stressed the need for such initiatives by London councils, given that commercial developers have consistently failed to meet housing demand in London and that government policy restricting borrowing for house building was “moronic”.

Responding to criticism that Newham’s £40m investment in the conversion of the 2012 Olympic stadium, now the London Stadium, has failed to produce a return, he urged people to look at the bigger picture of the Olympic Park and its environs, saying that Newham’s commitment had been to a wider regeneration programme and that this would eventually produce “somewhere between £120m and £160m in value” to the borough".

Read the full On London interview with Sir Robin Wales here.

THANK YOU for visiting this website. OnLondon.co.uk has led the way in covering the Newham trigger ballot story. It needs your donations to keep it going, growing and continuing to provide fair and detailed journalism about a range of big issues facing the capital. Please support this Crowdfunder today.

Labour Newham re-run mayoral trigger ballot result: entrails and implications

Hat tip Dave Hill "Onlondon"

"Labour’s London region has announced that an open selection contest will be held between 1-16 March for party members in Newham to choose their candidate for borough mayor on 3 May. 

This follows a re-run of the affirmative nomination process or “trigger ballot” originally held in autumn 2016. The re-run generated a resounding “no” to incumbent Sir Robin Wales going forward automatically to seek – and almost certainly secure – an unprecedented fifth term in the job on 3 May by a margin of 31-4. The original produced a narrow win for “yes”, by 20-17. What’s changed?

Rather a lot. As regular readers know, the re-run trigger ballot was held following a year long legal challenge by local members after Labour’s ruling National Executive Committee (NEC) declined a request to set up an investigation into how the original process was conducted. It was administered by Labour’s London region, unlike the original, which was a remarkably untidy bit of internal democracy run the party’s local campaign forum, whose procedures secretary was a Newham councillor on Sir Robin’s payroll.

The full results of the re-run have now emerged and make for intriguing reading. All 20 ward branch memberships voted “no”, whereas in the original trigger ballot only 11 had done so. Sir Robin owed his now cancelled victory in the original to 11 of the 17 votes cast by affiliated organisations or branches of them, mostly trade unions, going his way. However, this time only four of those affiliate votes were on the “yes” side while 11 went in the “no” column. Hence, 31-4 overall.

The huge swing to “no” should be understood in light of Sir Robin’s surprise decision two weeks ago to urge all his previous supporters, members and affiliates alike, to do precisely that. He appears to have concluded that doing so would help his chances best.

In theory, it might have looked possible at least until a while back to have won another “yes” endorsement, again by a narrow margin – possible, but maybe not probable. In practice, at least some Labour members and affiliates alike will have become conscious during the past year that the original trigger process had indeed been unsatisfactory, and that the way in which some of the affiliates had been involved and cast their votes was opaque, inconsistent and looked pretty dubious.

So even had Sir Robin scraped through a second trigger ballot, his triumph would have seemed tainted to many local members and others. And had he lost it after trying to win, the likelihood of his prevailing in the ensuing open selection contest would probably have been less than by getting to that stage using the course he has chosen instead, arguing that, after all that has transpired, it is only right and proper to put the decision in the hands of the members. The open selection system excludes affiliates and bestows one vote on each of them. Sir Robin has decided to take his chances with the rank-and-file.

We will know if that calculation pays off for him in just over a month. Councillor Rokhsana Fiaz has declared her intention to run against him and there are rumours that another councillor, an erstwhile ally of Sir Robin, is considering doing the same. These may prove baseless. Whatever, all hopefuls will have to be approved by a shortlisting panel next Tuesday.

That leaves the intriguing entrails of the affiliates’ votes in the trigger re-run to pore over. A group called Christians on the Left voted “yes” last time. This time they voted “no”, seemingly answering Sir Robin’s call. The West Ham Women’s Forum again voted “no”. Newham Fabians did not take part a second time. Their national parent body had found that their 2016 “yes” vote had been decided in breach of the organisation’s own rules.

And so to the mysteries of the unions.

Three that voted “yes” last time did not take part again. They include Bectu, because it has since disaffiliated from Labour nationally, and the Euston branch of the TSSA. There had been question marks over the 2016 votes of both these. The third was Usdaw, whose case underlines an ambiguity in Labour’s rulebook that played a big part in the legal ructions.

Usdaw had five branches affiliated in Newham in 2016, but cast only one vote. Similarly, Unison had six affiliated branches, yet only cast one vote. By contrast, other unions took the view that every affiliated branch was entitled to one vote each. Hence, Unite cast two votes, the CWU cast three and the GMB cast four. Unsurprisingly, those who’ve complained about the process wondered how that could be right.

Well, this time, while USDAW didn’t vote at all, four Unison branches took part, all voting “no”. The CWU cast two “yes” votes and one “no” the first time round. This time, it was “no” times three. Unite cast two no votes, as before. Only the GMB prevented a union “no” grand slam, its London region, which takes the decision, resolutely casting four “yes” votes again, despite Sir Robin’s entreaties to do otherwise.

Why that decision was made is now of academic interest only, but it is worth reflecting on what the re-run trigger ballot outcome might have been had it not been decided that only members and affiliates properly eligible for the original process could take part in it.

In the months after the original was completed, the number of GMB branches affiliated to Labour in Newham soared thanks to the energetic efforts of political officer Gary Doolan. It apparently now stands at 35. Had they been eligible for the trigger re-run, each of those affiliated branches could have had a vote cast on their behalf by the GMB London region in the way that it thought best. Assuming all 35 had been for “yes”, Sir Robin might by now have been automatically re-selected by 35 votes to 31, even though he’d said he didn’t want to be, and be on his way being Mayor of Newham for four more years thanks mainly to the efforts of a man who is a councillor in Islington. Labour’s rule book is in need of attention.

THANK YOU for visiting this website. OnLondon.co.uk has led the way in covering the Newham trigger ballot story. It needs your donations to keep it going, growing and continuing to provide fair and detailed journalism about a range of big issues facing the capital. Please support this Crowdfunder today.

"Labour members call for immediate ‘open selection’ to choose Newham mayoral candidate"

Another sensible article from "On London" journalist Dave Hill on the Newham Mayoral trigger debacle. He features Newham Councillor and former mayoral advisor (one of the very few female advisors) Julianne Marriott, calling for an open selection. The NEC are meeting tomorrow and I have also lobbied its members calling for the same thing.

"Labour Party members in Newham having asked the party’s National Executive Committee (NEC) to order an immediate open selection contest for choosing their candidate for May’s mayoral election in the borough, rather than re-running the disputed “trigger ballot” that initially saw the incumbent Sir Robin Wales go forward automatically for the role.

Newham Labour councillor Julianne Marriott reported on Twitter yesterday that she had emailed the NEC with the request, stating that she does not believe “a re-run of the trigger ballot is in the best interest of Newham residents”. Her fellow Labour councillor Charlene McLean has written a letter to Labour’s general secretary Iain McNicol in her capacity as chair of West Ham Consitutency Labour Party making the same appeal on behalf of herself and her fellow CLP officers.

The interventions follow Labour’s acting Greater London regional director Neil Fleming informing local members last week that the original trigger ballot – or affirmative nomination process – which was held in autumn 2016 would be re-run from regional level following claims that there had been a number of irregularities in its administration by the party’s local campaign forum and a resulting legal challenge when the NEC failing to investigate them.

Fleming did not give a date on which the re-run trigger ballot would start and there are concerns locally that conducting it and then completing a possible ensuing open selection contest should Sir Robin fail to secure the majority he needs for automatic re-selection would create unmanageable time and organisational pressures with the election only four months away, and accentuate tensions within the local membership.

Re-selection processes for sitting Labour councillors have yet to be completed, meaning that ordinary members are already being asked to absorb campaign literature and attend special meetings. The original mayoral trigger ballot process took approximately five weeks to complete.

McLean’s letter expresses concerns that “there is no longer sufficient time” in which to run a new trigger ballot process and any open selection contest that might follow, adding the view that “it is the Labour Party’s delay in addressing our concerns which has created this urgency”.

She also reminds McNicol that West Ham CLP, one of the two CLPs in Newham, passed a vote of no confidence in the original trigger ballot process in January 2017, reaffirming this the following November, and says there has been “no constructive engagement” with them on the issues raised.

Elaborating on her reasons for writing to the NEC on Twitter, Marriott expressed her personal expectation that “a re-run trigger ballot will go to open selection” and that this would result in a delay in Newham residents “knowing who [the] Labour candidate is [and] what they stand for”. She added that she thinks a new trigger ballot and possible wider media coverage of it “unlikely to be positive experience for residents and members”.

Sir Robin is seeking an unprecedented fifth term as Newham’s Mayor, having previously been leader of the council under the previous local government system in the borough. Labour’s political dominance in Newham is such the eventual winner of the internal candidate selection contest is almost certain to go on to become the borough’s Mayor in May.

This article was updated on 8 January at 17:25 to include details from the west Ham CLP letter. Previous coverage of the Newham trigger ballot dispute can be read here."

"Newham mayor ‘trigger ballot’ to be re-run by Labour region" (and a possible new contender?)

See post below from former Guardian Journalist Dave Hill on his "On London" website. I see that Dave mentions Cllr Rokhsana Fiaz, as a possible contender.

"The process which led to Sir Robin Wales being endorsed to seek a fifth term as Labour Mayor of Newham is to be re-run following claims by party members first made a year ago that a number of alleged irregularities had made “a material difference to the result”.

In an email sent out this evening, Neil Fleming, the acting regional director of the Greater London Labour Party, said the re-run had been “agreed” because the prospect of a court case to determine the dispute “would be costly to the party” and “a massive distraction” from the mayoral and council election campaigns to take place in May.

Just before Christmas Sir Robin made known through the Newham Recorder that he favoured Labour cancelling the result of the original affirmative nomination or “trigger” ballot, which he was declared winner of by 20 votes to 17, making the same points about the financial cost to the party of fighting a court battle and loss of focus on the borough election contests.

No date for the start of the fresh process is given by Fleming, though he does say that the same “freeze date” of 25 October 2016 will apply, meaning that members will again have had to have been members for at least six months prior to that date to be eligible to take part.

The email says nothing about the eligibility or voting entitlements of affiliated organisations, primarily trade unions, which was a focus of some of the main complaints about the process. However, Fleming states that “the process will be administered by the Greater London Labour Party”, thereby removing it from the control of Labour’s Local Campaign Forum (LCF) in Newham, which the complainants contend failed to administer or the process consistently or properly.

Fleming writes in his email that “the Labour Party maintains that all rules and procedures were applied correctly and that officers of the LCF acted in good faith with the information they were provided with”.

In a letter to Labour’s governing National Executive Committee, sent in January 2017, 47 party members in Newham, including 10 councillors, argued that there were grounds for questioning the validity of seven of the votes cast in favour of Sir Robin going forward automatically as Labour’s mayoral candidate in May this years rather than facing possible challengers in an open selection contest.

On London has learned that that the ballot paper for an affiliated branch of the TSSA union was conveyed directly to an officer of that branch by a councillor who is a member of Sir Robin’s mayoral team rather than being sent initially to a more senior figure in the organisation, as appears to have been the case with other unions. The TSSA vote was eventually cast in favour of Sir Robin.

A review by the Fabian Society of the approach taken by its Newham branch to deciding which way to vote found that it had “breached the society’s rules” in coming to its decision to back Sir Robin’s automatic candidacy.

The headquarters of Bectu, one of the unions with a local affiliated branch at the time of the ballot and which supported Sir Robin, could not confirm to On London that an affiliation fee was paid for the relevant year. Bectu seems certain not to participate in the re-run due its unconnected disaffiliating from Labour at national level at the end of 2016, following its amalgamation with another union.

At least one of the other unions which still has local affiliation status might cast more votes in the re-run than in the original ballot due to differing understandings of the rights of separate affiliated branches at that time.

Party members who’ve been pressing for the re-run believe its outcome could be close, depending on changes in the numbers of union preferences either way and because the memberships of some of the ward branches were finely balanced in their views the first time round.

Should Sir Robin fail to secure a majority in the re-run ballot he would certainly face challengers in an ensuing open selection battle, should he decide to contest it. Councillor Rokhsana Fiaz, who sits on the council’s important overview and scrutiny committee, is thought a possible contender. Councillor John Whitworth said in November 2016, when the original trigger ballot was taking place, that he wished to challenge Sir Robin to become Labour candidate.

Updated on 6 January 2018. Read all of On London’s coverage of the Newham mayor trigger ballot dispute via here."

"Sir Robin Wales calls for contested mayoral ‘trigger ballot’ outcome to be cancelled"

Hat tip Dave Hill's On London blog 

"Sir Robin Wales has asked the Labour Party to cancel the outcome of the internal selection process that saw him endorsed to seek a fifth term as Mayor of Newham following a campaign by local members for an investigation into its conduct.

An affirmative nomination or “trigger ballot” held in the autumn of 2016, saw Sir Robin prevail by 20 votes to 17, and Labour’s governing National Executive Committee (NEC) has resisted calls by party members in Newham, including ten councillors, to look into what they described as “many failures of process/propriety and procedural irregularities”.

But now Sir Robin has told the Newham Recorder that although the trigger ballot outcome was confirmed by the NEC, legal action against it by some of the complainants had prompted him ask for it to be quashed because “the costs of a court case would be significant and Labour Party members’ money should not be used in this way”.

Sir Robin’s initiative came after those pursuing the legal action secured the funds they required to move to the “statement of claim” stage, setting out the grounds for their case that their party has “behaved improperly” over the trigger ballot, both locally and nationally.

A letter to the NEC sent in January signed by 47 Labour members, including 10 councillors, argued that seven of the votes cast in favour of Sir Robin going forward automatically as Labour candidate for next year’s mayoral election rather than facing potential challenges from other hopefuls had been dubious and that there had been inconsistencies in the way unions affiliated to the party locally had been enfranchised.

Each of Newham’s 20 ward branches had a single vote in an electoral college, which also included 11 affiliates, seven of which were trade unions. The branches voted by 11 to nine against Sir Robin progressing without a further contest, but the balance of affiliates’ votes gave the incumbent the majority he needed.

A review by the Fabian Society of the approach taken by its Newham branch to deciding which way to vote found that it had “breached the society’s rules” in coming to its decision to back Sir Robin’s automatic candidacy.

It has been established by On London that the headquarters of Bectu, one of the unions with a local affiliated branch at the time of the ballot, cannot confirm that an affiliation fee was paid for the relevant year. (For unrelated reasons, Bectu is no longer affiliated to Labour).

On London has also learned that the ballot paper for an affiliated branch of the TSSA union was conveyed directly to an officer of that branch by a councillor who is a member of Sir Robin’s mayoral team rather than being sent initially to a more senior figure in the organisation, as appears to have been the case with other unions. The TSSA vote was eventually cast in favour of Sir Robin.

One key point of the dispute has been whether Labour party rules entitle each affiliated union branch to vote separately in mayoral trigger ballots or whether just a single vote per union should be accepted, regardless of how many different branches are affiliated locally.

Not all the unions involved interpreted the rules in the same way, resulting in Unison casting just one vote – against Sir Robin going forward automatically – despite having six branches affiliated, whereas the GMB – which supported Sir Robin – cast four votes, the CWU cast three and Unite cast two.

It is understood that an audio recording, heard by On London, which those who have been seeking an investigation believe reveal an ally of Sir Robin disclosing questionable conduct concerning the trigger ballot process, has been sent to a senior Labour Party official.

In his comments to the Newham Recorder Sir Robin says he is “supporting a new process to be undertaken under the auspices of the national or regional Labour Party”. The complainants have criticised the involvement of at least one member of Sir Robin’s mayoral team in the running of the process.

Any decision by the party to instigate a fresh trigger ballot or to hold an open selection contest will entail settling on a “freeze date” in advance of which members and affiliates will have to had have had their documentation in order to be eligible to vote.

Since the completion of the original ballot, the GMB has affiliated 26 branches to West Ham constituency Labour Party in Newham, each of which would have a separate vote if a freeze date subsequent to their affiliation were set and multiple votes per union again accepted.

Read all of On London’s coverage of the Newham mayor trigger ballot dispute via here.

We are Londoners: We are One

I was supposed to have gone to the House of Commons this morning for a pension briefing but had to cancel due to a last minute clash. I also had a long telephone conversation at lunchtime with an MP who was driving into Parliament to vote. Many of my friends and colleagues were at work today inside or visiting Parliament.

While we don't know the full facts on what happened this afternoon it seems that some brainwashed moron had decided to deliberately murder innocent tourists and unarmed public servants.

Why this cretin thought that such cowardly murders would advance any cause is beyond belief.

To me there is no difference between the fascist who murdered Jo Cox MP or the one who tried to kill MPs today.

I think our first response to such vile acts is to state that while we are proud and passionate about our religious or secular beliefs, we are also all Londoners.We are democratic, tolerant and proud of our diversity and the rule of law.

I love the Facebook friend who lives in Newcastle who said today's outrage also "felt like her own family had been attacked".

The best response is that such an attack on London is actually an attack on all of us - and we should all respond accordingly by not only condemning but doing something practical and real against all such hate and bigotry.
(hat tip photo Dave Hill).

Newham mayor ‘trigger ballot’: union confirms that affiliation fee not paid

Check out Guardian Journalist, Dave Hill's blog.

A second organisation whose vote helped Newham mayor Sir Robin Wales go forward unopposed as Labour candidate for next year’s mayoral election in the borough has effectively substantiated a complaint by local party members about an aspect of the candidate selection process.

Inquiries by national officers of Bectu, the media and entertainment union, have concluded that a branch affiliated to Labour locally had not paid the required fee for 2016, the year the vote took place. In a letter to Labour’s governing National Executive Committee (NEC) sent in January, 47 Newham members had argued that the Bectu vote be declared void partly on those grounds.

Last month the national Fabian Society informed its Newham branch, which also voted “yes” to Sir Robin automatically becoming the candidate for 2018, had breached the society’s own rules for determining how votes in Labour affirmative nomination or “trigger ballots” should be cast.

Sir Robin won the trigger ballot by 20 votes to 17 in a process held in the latter months of last year, in which ward branches of Newham’s two constituency Labour parties (CLPs) and local branches of national organisations affiliated to Labour participated. Bectu, which says its head office had no involvement with the Newham ballot, has since become a sector of another union, Prospect, and disaffiliated from Labour. The union has informed On London that no local affiliation fee was paid by the Newham branch delegate and that it was not invoiced for it.

The Bectu and Fabian trigger ballot votes were among seven of the 20 “yes” votes cast which the 47 Newham party members, who include ten Labour councillors, asked the NEC to either hold in abeyance or declare void. Their 13-page letter further claimed that there were “many failures of process/propriety and procedural irregularities” in the trigger ballot process as a whole and that these had made “a material difference to the result”.

At a meeting held last month the NEC did not take up the 47 members’ request that it hold in inquiry into the overall process. Labour general secretary Iain McNicol told one Newham member in an email that the issue had been “raised very briefly” but that there was “no discussion about pausing or changing the result” and that two NEC members had agreed to visit Newham and speak to party members there about what lessons could be learned for the future.

A date for the visit is understood to have been set for 21 February, but no meeting has taken place, apparently due to a difference of view over whether party members who were satisfied with the process and its outcome should be present along with those who are unhappy about them. Labour’s London region has previously stated that “the process in Newham was carried out in line with established rules and procedures”. Signatories of the letter to the NEC are considering their options for further action.

Newham is exceptional in that all 60 of its borough councillors are Labour. Sir Robin is now set to seek a fifth consecutive term as mayor, having won the inaugural mayoral context in 2002. Some councillors and other members believe his incumbency has been too long and that his command of the Town Hall’s workings make it difficult to scrutinise or place appropriate checks and balances on him. However, the signatories to the NEC letter said they would support him his candidacy for 2018 if they regarded it as obtained “as a result of an open and fair re-selection process”.

Contact On London via davehillonlondon@gmail.com.

"Labour refuses Newham ‘trigger ballot’ inquiry as affiliate finds breach of its own rules"

From Guardian journalist Dave Hills on his blog. "Labour’s governing national executive committee (NEC) has turned down a request from party members in Newham to hold an inquiry into how the borough’s executive mayor Sir Robin Wales was narrowly chosen to seek election to the post for a fifth time next year despite two of the affiliated organisations that supported him conducting their own investigations into how their votes were cast, one of which has now concluded that its local branch broke its own rules.

Sir Robin announced his re-selection, secured by 20 votes to 17, to a full meeting of Newham Council on Monday. The NEC had concluded on 24 January that the result of the close-run local “trigger ballot” to decide if he would automatically become Labour’s candidate for May 2018 or face challenges from other hopefuls should stand.

However, the national Fabian Society has informed its Newham branch, which is affiliated to Labour locally and voted “yes” to Sir Robin’s automatic re-selection, that it had “breached the society’s rules” for determining how trigger ballot votes should be cast and that “the Labour Party has been informed” of the outcome of its review of what occurred.

In a 13-page letter sent to the NEC prior to its meeting last week, 47 Labour members in Newham, including ten councillors, asked that the Fabians’ vote “be held in abeyance and not counted” on grounds that included failure by local officers to hold a meeting of members to discuss which way their “trigger ballot” vote should be cast. A statement from the national Fabians said, while it accepted that its Newham officers had acted in good faith, “the national society’s by-laws require a vote of members in the re-selection of a mayoral candidate” and that this had not taken place.

Separately, one of the trade unions whose vote helped Sir Robin to victory is looking into whether the locally-affiliated branch responsible for the decision followed the correct procedures. Gerry Morrissey, general secretary of media union BECTU, has told On London that, although the union’s head office had no involvement in the matter, the way the “yes” vote was settled is to be considered by its executive committee later this month. BECTU has recently become a sector of another union, Prospect, and dis-affiliated from Labour with effect from 1 January.

The letter from the Newham members to the NEC stated that the signatories “do not believe” that local affiliation fees to East Ham constituency Labour Party (CLP) had been paid by the BECTU branch and that “a communication” from the union’s branch delegate suggests that the person concerned decided how to vote in the ballot without any consultation with fellow BECTU branch members. In this case, they asked that the ballot “be declared void and that BECTU be deemed not to have voted”.

It was among a large number of points made about the trigger ballot process as a whole in a sometimes the strongly-worded document, which asked the NEC to void or hold in abeyance a total of seven of the 20 individual “yes” votes, comprising two from unions, two from other affiliates and three from party ward branches, of which two took the “yes” option by a single vote. Eleven out of 20 ward branches voted “no” to the automatic re-selection of Sir Robin.

The letter also asked the NEC to examine why some eligible unions cast more than one vote and suggests that inconsistent interpretation of the rules arose from a major failing in the running of the trigger ballot process. The GMB cast four votes (all “yes”), the CWU cast three (two “yes”, one “no”) and Unite cast two (all “no”) while Unison (“no”), Usdaw (“yes”), the TSSA (“yes”) and Bectu (“yes”) cast only one each. The letter attributes this to some locally-affiliated union branches each casting individual and other unions only voting once no matter many branches had affiliated locally to one of the two Newham CLPs as a result of rules being interpreted differently.

The CWU and TSSA have not responded to email requests to comment on the matter and the GMB, despite several requests and an assurance that a response would be provided, have yet to offer answers to any of the questions first put to them about the trigger ballot process before Christmas.

In email correspondence Newham party members, Labour Party general secretary Iain McNicol has written that the trigger ballot was “raised very briefly” at the NEC meeting and that “there was a short discussion” but that the body “did not discuss or agree to pausing or changing the result of this process”. He added that “NEC members have agreed to come to Newham and speak to members about what lessons can be learned from this process [regarding] how future trigger ballot processes can be conducted in a way that best engages members and affiliates”. It is believed that two NEC members will be involved. Signatories to the letter are considering how to respond. One has expressed dissatisfaction to McNicol that the request for an inquiry has not been granted.

In a statement, Labour’s London region has said that, “the process in Newham was carried out in line with established rules and procedures”. A source close to Sir Robin has denied that the ballot process was flawed and suggested that an influx of new members prompted to join the party since May 2015 in order to support Jeremy Corbyn, Labour’s leader, lies behind much of the opposition to Sir Robin, although only members who joined before 25 April 2016 were entitled to vote in their ward ballots to determine which way to vote in the trigger ballot, which ran from 25 October until 4 December. This would have excluded any Newham members who joined Labour last summer in order to help Corbyn defeat the challenge to his leadership by Owen Smith.

The source also contends that a group of local Labour members called Trigger Democracy, which has campaigned for an open selection, is a manifestation of this, something the group itself denies, saying its members “aren’t anti-Robin” and “don’t represent any faction”. Those behind it decline to reveal their names on the grounds that they “wanted to provide as neutral a platform as possible” and because some of them work in or for the borough.

Newham is notable for all 60 of its councillors being Labour. Some of these and other local members believe that Sir Robin has been in the job too long and that his grip on the machinery of the Town Hall has made it difficult to hold him to account. Even so, the letter to the NEC said that its signatories would support his candidacy without equivocation if they considered it secured “as a result of an open and fair re-selection process”.

Labour NEC asked to inquire into Newham mayoral 'trigger ballot'

On the whole a fair article but it does not report on the complaints of many members that this ballot was rigged.

The Guardian Dave Hill on London "Nearly 50 party members in the east London borough want their national ruling body to examine claims that the process for reselecting Sir Robin Wales was flawed

Labour Party members in Newham unhappy with the “affirmative nomination” process that saw the borough’s directly-elected mayor Sir Robin Wales declared the narrow winner of a “trigger ballot” to decide whether he should automatically go forward as their party’s mayoral candidate next year have sent a 13-page letter to Labour’s national executive Committee (NEC) asking it to establish a “full inquiry” into what it claims were “many failures of process/propriety and procedural irregularities” that took place on the way to the outcome and to halt the confirmation of Sir Robin as 2018 candidate until such an inquiry is complete.

Signed by 47 members of the east London borough’s two constituency Labour parties (CLPs), including ten Newham councillors, the letter sets out at length its case that “a number of [individual] ballots should be declared void or held in abeyance” and that the conduct of the process, which ran from 25 October to 4 December 2016, “made a material difference to the result”, tipping it in favour of Sir Robin by 20 votes to 17.

The trigger ballot offered a two-way choice between voting “yes” to Sir Robin being re-selected unchallenged as his party’s candidate for the next mayoral election to seek fifth consecutive term in a post he first won in its inaugural year of 2002, and voting “no” to that so that an open contest to become the candidate would be held instead.

Each of the 20 electoral ward Labour branches in Newham’s two CLPs, East Ham and West Ham, had one vote in the ballot and a further 17 votes were cast by Labour-affiliated organisations, most of them trade unions. Of the 20 wards, 11 voted “no”, meaning they favoured an open selection contest. However, 11 “yes” votes were cast by the 17 affiliates, which got Sir Robin over the finish line.

The letter to Labour’s NEC raises what it calls “three major failings” in the running of the ballot process, concerning the differing numbers of votes cast by different unions “because of a different interpretation of the rules”, the conduct of individual balloting and “conflicts of interest between the different roles of those charged with the management of the process”.

The results as published show that the GMB union cast four votes, the CWUand Unite two, while the four other unions involved – TSSA, BECTU, USDAW and Unison - cast one each. All four GMB votes were “yes” to Sir Robin going forward automatically. Two of the CWU’s votes were “yes” and the third was “no”. Other “yes” votes came from USDAW, BECTU and TSSA. Both Unite votes were for the “no” side, as was Unison’s.

The letter asks that the single votes of two other affiliated organisations “be held in abeyance and not counted”, including that of Newham Fabians which voted “yes”. The Fabian Society nationally has confirmed that it is still “seeking further information” from its Newham branch and has received “a number of complaints” that the correct trigger ballot procedure was not followed. The NEC is also requested to look into the way three of the ward “yes” votes were arrived at. Two of these wards reached their decision on the strength of a majority of just one member.

A source close to Sir Robin has denied that the ballot process or its outcome are questionable and a spokesperson for the London Labour Party said: “The Labour Party does not comment on internal selections but the process in Newham was carried out in line with established rules and procedures.” The national Labour Party has not responded to a request to confirm that the NEC has received the letter and whether it will be addressing the matter. The next full meeting of the NEC is on Tuesday.

Newham is exceptional in that all 60 of its councillors as well as its mayor are Labour, leading to jokes by other London politicians about the borough becoming a one-party state, but also to complaints among some local members that Sir Robin has been in the job too long and become difficult to hold to account. However, the letter says that if he is confirmed as the 2018 candidate “as a result of an open and fair re-selection process, we and other members would all support (in full and without equivocation) his candidacy”.