The executive of Weaver Vale Constituency Labour Party did not want me back in the party, but although the membership secretary (I had a formal complaint about her with NWRO) accused me of racism, my Subject Access Request shows no evidence of racism having been submitted to the party to support her assertions. Why did North West Region and the National Party, who were well aware of the friction in the CLP, not only accept the word of the executive without question, but as it appears from the emails between them, the Compliance Unit colluded with the CLP to get the evidence against me right?
So what what is the actual “evidence” that was submitted to the party that was so offensive to the CLP executive? Below are examples of what the CLP secretary calls “going further than acceptable political differences, but became personal and defamatory”
These are four of nine screen grabs (no I’m not making this up), there are a few more, but you get the gist.
Try not to laugh too hard, this is serious.
The people who were happy to use this as “evidence” are mainly Halton councillors of many years standing or in one case a candidate for the 2019 CWaC elections. Also bear in mind, this was a face book conversation that I joined in with AFTER I had been driven to leave the party and therefore NOT bound by party rules.
What I find sinister about the email correspondence is that they show collusion between the CLP executive, the NWRO and the Compliance Unit. The CLP secretary not only checks with the compliance unit to make sure the evidence is right but, asks what would be so damning of me, that I would lose an appeal? The appeals procedure has been condemned by the Chakrabati report as not fit for purpose – you can see why.
I’ve cropped the first part of this email as it has personal details, it is probably from the CLP secretary (that has been redacted) and is to the The Compliance Unit. I don’t know what the following two pages contain, they have been redacted, but I assume they refer to me otherwise why bother to photocopy them? If they do refer to me, what is it the party don’t want me to see?
Urgent request for assistance in CLP decision to Object to Membership – (number)
Why is criticism of Halton Councillors or an MP not allowed? Britain is still a democracy. My banter on a facebook group goes further than political differences and are defamatory? Really? Is that what the he screen grabs above show? I’ll just mention here that I worked with the MP for Halton in the 1980’s and have known him for 35 or so years. I think it’s fair to say we have our political differences. So what?
But the most outrageous accusation is “They (me) engage with others whose standing in the Labour Party or otherwise is not known, but it is suspected they are not members of the Labour Party”. It’s like something out of 1984, that the CLP executive consider it their duty to watch members to see not only what they say, but whether they consort with non Labour party people. Not only can I not have and express a view on MPs and councillors, (even in the few weeks when I was not in the party) that varies from their narrow opinion, but our differences of opinion is considered worthy of use when finding material to refuse membership. Little sister is watching you. Have I said I think this is outrageous?
It also says a number of the executive committee spoke against me. That’s not really a surprise as apart from the CLP secretary, most of the executive are either part of a family or their friends and most come from the two Runcorn branches. If I was out of the party, my complaint against three of these delegates would not be investigated. That makes them judge, jury and executioner.
At the very least, this decision should have gone to the full CLP meeting, as the secretary implies in the email. In the minutes of the executive meeting the secretary has given the game away. Refusal of my membership was meant to be taken by the executive in secret, without the knowledge of the rest of the CLP general management committee. But the secretary has annotated the minutes “Secretary’s note: I supported the proposal not to refer the matter to the general meeting so as not to cause personal embarrassment to the applicant who was well known to members as a result of her previous roles held having regard to the binding decision made by the executive committee”. Oh yeah, a likely story. This sounds more like he was uncomfortable with the decision, so why did he go along with it?
The CLP secretary had at that point 4 years experience (barring the times he resigns then comes back again and yes he’s back again), but did not think it right to point out to the executive the NWRO or the Compliance Unit the conflict of the CLP executive making this decision.
For a party that is supposed to support fairness and natural justice I find it shocking that the party structure has no fairness or transparency in it’s procedures.
I think the last sentence of the CLP secretary’s question (see below) to Jane Shaw of the compliance unit shows just how desperate they were to keep me from rejoining their little fiefdom.