"Newham Deselection Was A Sign Of Democratic Change – Not A Power Grab"

Very good article on LabourList by Newham resident Maya Goodfellow

"Ever since Jeremy Corbyn was elected Labour leader, a narrative has endured regardless of how well the party’s done at the ballot box or how many new membership cards are issued: he’s capturing the party and his supporters are slowly taking over branches and CLPs.

This makes it sound like a hostile and importantly undemocratic takeover. And pundits say, almost on autopilot, that it spells the end of the Labour party. When Labour’s general secretary Iain McNicol announced he would be standing down, one standard response was riven with this thinking; it was a sign the party “takeover” by Jeremy Corbyn was “almost total”. And when Labour members in East London chose Rokhsana Fiaz as their mayoral candidate over incumbent Robin Wales, one journalist described it as a “coup”. Flip the narrative on its head, and you might find another story altogether.

To understand exactly what I mean, take a closer look where I live, Newham – the site of an ongoing struggle for change. In May, this part of East London will choose who will be its next mayor. Though no position is guaranteed, Labour stand a good chance of winning because this borough, one of the country’s most diverse, is solidly red. Last time around, all sixty of its councillors and its mayor were Labour.

But choosing a mayoral candidate isn’t a straightforward affair. Instead of a process where anyone can run to be Labour’s contender, the party’s internal rule book dictates that there has to be a ballot deciding who can run: wards and affiliates vote on whether there should be an open selection or if the incumbent is automatically the candidate. At the end of 2016 Newham went through this process and, by a slim margin, an open selection was voted down – making Robin Wales, the current mayor who has effectively been in charge for over twenty years, the candidate once again.

All didn’t run smoothly. A group of Labour members got together to question the way the process was run; they claimed procedural rules were “breached” because they were applied differently to different affiliated organisations. Some trade unions with several branches had voted more than once while others with more than one branch believed they only had one vote, which potentially tipped the vote in Wales’ favour.

Opposed by Wales and brushed to one side by officials, up to 30 local party members fought to make their voices heard. After a sustained grassroots campaign and threatening to take the party to court, they were finally successful; the party decided to run another trigger ballot. This wasn’t a Labour party taken over undemocratically by the left, but local members launching sustained resistance for months to get basic democracy.

The rerun decided it: members wanted Wales to be challenged. And the outcome of the trigger ballot saw Rokhsana Fiaz – who promised, among other things, to have a referendum on the mayoral position itself – win with 63 per cent of the vote. It shouldn’t have taken so long to get to this point. Labour has long been, to some extent, a top-down machine. This only got worse in the Blair years, when power-hoarding and leader-led politics were the norm. Newham is a prime example of that; as the Focus E15 grassroots group has shown, Wales has operated a top-down hierarchical operation for years, which appeared to show little regard for some of the borough’s poorest residents.

This should bust the myth that deselection is always some shadowy, unfair process. Fiaz has not become Labour candidate through an undemocratic takeover – quite the opposite. In much the same way, it takes a catastrophic misreading of the past few years to see increased democratic engagement with Labour while it moves to the left as Corbyn surreptitiously taking over the party. Change that involves contestation doesn’t necessarily mean a lack of democracy.

Labour is the biggest left-wing party in Europe. Its members and supporters are not just there to deliver the party’s message on the doorstep or turnout to vote every five years; they are people who can shape those messages and the party itself. After decades of managerial politics being parroted as the only pragmatic way to win elections, the last election showed creating more space for bottom-up politics is both a matter of justice and expediency. What’s happened in Newham is a sign that focussing on the changes in Labour as a Corbyn power grab is not only incorrect, it ignores an interesting, productive struggle over change that’s taking place at the party’s grassroots".

Getting fit with Labour (apart from eating chocolate cake)

Picture collage from yesterday's Labour campaign session in my ward, West Ham, with our MP, Lyn Brown (and Cara, her infamous Labour attack dog).

West Ham ward and the wider West Ham CLP are "safe" Labour seats but it is humbling how much support we get. It is also amazing the number of residents who tell us that they are Labour Party members. This does not mean that everything is perfect and I picked up as a local Councillor, casework from residents.

Also, I picked up loud and clear from a number of Party members and residents that they expect that there will be an open selection process for the next Labour candidate to be the Newham directly elected Mayor.

I am trying to record on my smart phone the number of "steps" that I do while campaigning but I forgot to check after we finished with coffee and yummy chocolate cake (thanks to Lyn) in the Sawmills cafe. I suspect that the consumption of cake outweighed the steps that morning but I had completed 7,036 steps by the end of the day (which included some other campaigning elsewhere in the borough).

So on balance I think it is still true to say "Go campaigning, Get fit with Labour". 

"Labour sets Newham mayor ‘trigger ballot’ re-run dates"

Check out below another insightful article by "OnLondon" journalist Dave Hill, about the Newham Mayoral trigger.

I am more than happy with my quote in this article except, perhaps to make clear that I spoke as a Labour Party activist and that I am an elected lay "official" of UNISON and not an employed officer of the union. 

"The re-run process for deciding if Sir Robin Wales will again be Labour’s mayoral candidate for Newham without having to win a separate selection contest will be completed by the end of 11 February, according a timetable set by the party’s London regional body.

Voting arrangements for members of Labour ward branches within the East Ham parliamentary constituency will be directly run by regional officers in line with an agreement reached following legal action by party members in Newham, who were unhappy with how the original affirmative nomination or “trigger ballot” had been conducted.

While individual party branches within the neighbouring West Ham CLP have been given leave to run their own meetings to decide which way to cast their re-run trigger ballot votes, the London region will organise the East Ham meetings themselves in Newham Town Hall over the weekend of 10 and 11 February. An email from the party’s deputy regional director, seen by On London, explains that this is because “we believe their branches have not met for some time”.

The re-run process for deciding if Sir Robin Wales will again be Labour’s mayoral candidate for Newham without having to win a separate selection contest will be completed by the end of 11 February, according a timetable set by the party’s London regional body.

Voting arrangements for members of Labour ward branches within the East Ham parliamentary constituency will be directly run by regional officers in line with an agreement reached following legal action by party members in Newham, who were unhappy with how the original affirmative nomination or “trigger ballot” had been conducted.

While individual party branches within the neighbouring West Ham CLP have been given leave to run their own meetings to decide which way to cast their re-run trigger ballot votes, the London region will organise the East Ham meetings themselves in Newham Town Hall over the weekend of 10 and 11 February. An email from the party’s deputy regional director, seen by On London, explains that this is because “we believe their branches have not met for some time”.

The London region informed members at the beginning of the year that a re-run would take place. Its decision to treat the East Ham branches differently appears to vindicate claims made during the legal action and by its supporters that East Ham CLP as a whole has not been being functioning correctly and that this influenced the way the original trigger ballot process, held during the autumn of 2016, was administered.

Eligibility for the re-run ballot is restricted to those members and affiliated organisations judged to have legitimately taken part in the original process and which have maintained those party links.

On London has been told that two of the organisations that voted in the original trigger ballot, both of them in favour of the incumbent mayor going forward automatically as his party’s candidate for 2018, will not take part in the re-run.

One is the Newham branch of the Fabian Society, which it was claimed was not in fact affiliated to East Ham CLP when the original ballot took place. The Newham branch has been found by Fabian Society headquarters to have failed to follow the organisation’s own procedure for deciding how to cast trigger ballot votes.

The other is the trade union Bectu, which disaffiliated from the Labour Party nationally at the end of 2016 due to its merger with another union, Prospect. This was unconnected with claims that the Bectu branch which voted in the 2016 trigger ballot had not paid its affiliation fee and should therefore not have been eligible. Bectu’s headquarters were unable to confirm to On London that the fee had been paid.

On London has reported that another participating union, the TSSA, which had a branch affiliated to East Ham CLP, appears to have been treated differently from other affiliated unions with the likely effect that its vote was cast in Sir Robin’s favour rather than against.

Sir Robin was confirmed by Labour’s governing National Executive Committee as having secured the candidate nomination by 20 votes to 17, despite a request made in January last year by 47 party members in Newham, including 10 councillors, to establish an inquiry into how the trigger ballot was run.

A 13-page letter listed seven votes cast in the ballot that backed Sir Robin it considered questionable, including those of Bectu, TSSA, Newham Fabians and three ward branches.

It also questioned how the trigger ballot rules were explained and interpreted, pointing out that in the case of some unions individual affiliated branches cast one vote each while Unison, despite having six affiliated branches, cast only a single vote on behalf of all of them. The Unison vote was against Sir Robin’s automatic re-selection. On London understands that Unison intends to cast six votes in the re-run.

Should Sir Robin fail to secure a majority in the fresh trigger ballot, an open selection contest will ensue in which he will have the automatic right to stand. Other possible contenders include Councillor Rokhsana Fiaz, who is said to be considering whether she would seek to enter the race.

Some Newham members, including Councillors Julianne Marriott, Charlene McLean and John Gray had tried to get the NEC to rule that an open selection contest should take place immediately. According to unconfirmed reports, their case was considered at a recent meeting of the relevant NEC sub-committee but rejected in part because representatives of unions were opposed. Unlike the trigger ballot, the franchise for the open selection would be restricted to party members and conducted on a one member, one vote basis.

Gray, a Unison officer and one of the 47 signatories of the January 2017 letter to the NEC, has nonetheless welcomed the trigger ballot re-run. He told On London that Fiaz would be “one of a number good candidates who might run if Robin loses and could help build unity after the first, disastrous selection process”.

"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."

Democracy Rules..."Newham councillors welcome call to cancel trigger ballot result"

Latest in local newspaper about the "rigged" selection for Newham Mayor and call by local Councillors for an open and this time, democratic, selection process.

"Two councillors have welcomed mayor of Newham Sir Robin Wales’ call for Labour to cancel the result of the controversial trigger ballot.

Cllrs John Whitworth and Kay Scoresby both put their names forward as potential mayoral candidates at the end of last year if the result of the trigger ballot was for an open selection process, rather than automatically putting the incumbent Sir Robin as the party’s candidate.

Sir Robin won the trigger ballot with 20 votes to 17 thanks to most affiliates backing him - but 11 out of 20 Labour electoral wards called for the involvement of other candidates.

In a statement issued on December 21, he explained that he would be “supporting a new process to be undertaken under the auspices of the national or regional Labour Party”, having called for the previous result to be scrapped after legal action was launched.

This was set to focus around the allegation that Labour’s governing body, the National Executive Committee (NEC), failed to investigate any allegations of wrong-doing.

Those criticising the process claimed that some of the affiliated organisations voted more than once in the trigger ballot - known as the affirmative nomination process - while others did not as the rules were “inconsistently applied and explained”.

Cllr Whitworth, who represents West Ham, was the first to throw his hat into the ring last year and said: “There is not enough time for another trigger ballot process. The Labour Party must organise an open democratic selection for a range of Newham Labour Party candidates including Robin to be chosen democratically and fairly as our Labour candidate in 2018.”

Cllr Scoresby, who represents Canning Town North, added: “We need to bring and unite the local party together once again and for all let them decide in an open, honest and transparent process who should be our mayoral candidate.

“Trust East Ham and West Hammers to do the right thing for the party and the people of Newham. An open selection of candidates. A secret ballot. One member. One vote. Democracy rules.”

The election for the mayor of Newham, along with ward councillors, is set to take place on Thursday, May 3.

"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.