Inside « Labour Uncut

Councillor complains that Liverpool MP made his life “unbearable”

05/06/2013, 07:00:48 AM

The spat between Liverpool Wavertree MP Luciana Berger and one of her local councillors is hardly in the same league as the epic battles fought within the Liverpool Labour party – (remembered this month as its thirty years since Militant seized control of the city council) – but it’s a strange little row nonetheless.

To recap, a messy war of words between Berger and one of her local councillors, Jake Morrison, has poured forth into the public domain – largely thanks to Morrison publishing the contents of a letter of complaint he received from Berger last Friday.

In it, Berger, the upwardly-mobile shadow minister for climate change, complains to Morrison about “your complete lack of team work and respect for other members.”

She alleges he “ignored” emails about a training session with Ed Miliband’s campaign guru, Arnie Graf, and that he is the only councillor in her constituency who doesn’t “engage with my office”.

The letter was copied to Liverpool Mayor, Joe Anderson and the party’s chief whip.

Morrison published the letter on his Facebook page before responding with his own complaint to Ed Miliband about Berger’s behaviour.

He alleges that Berger and her constituency aide, Sheila Murphy, “orchestrated” a campaign enlisting party members in a bid to put pressure on him to quit before his term of office ends after announcing last month that he will not contest his seat at the next election in 2015.

He protests to Miliband that Berger has made his life “unbearable” and that “at every opportunity Luciana has undermined me, rather than supported.”

Sensationally elected to Liverpool City Council in 2011 having only just turned 18, Morrison managed a notable giant-slaying, beating formidable ex-Lib Dem council leader Lord Mike Storey.

At the time, Ed Miliband telephoned to congratulate him.

Morrison says that he wasn’t invited to the session with Graf, but fully supports his campaigning methods, which seek to develop a more meaningful conversation with the electorate rather than just identifying voting intentions – an approach he already uses as a local councillor for the Wavertree ward.

(more…)

Posted in Inside | 27 Comments »

Can anyone explain Labour’s euro-list ranking system?

01/06/2013, 03:24:16 PM

Here is a paragraph from an e-mail Labour party members will have received in the past 24hrs; it explains the way our European candidates will be ranked on the party list following the membership vote:

“If a male candidate secures the most preferences, then the highest-placed female candidate will come next on the list, followed by the next highest male candidate and then by the female and so on. If a female candidate secures the most preferences, then the highest-placed male will come next on the list, followed by the next female candidate and then by the male.

This process is known as zipping and is used by the Labour Party in European candidate selections to help to balance male and female candidates.”

All clear? Thought so.

At a time when there is widespread mistrust in politicians and disengagement in politics, does this really represent the most transparent way of selecting candidates?

Is “zipping” what the new politics is all about?

Answers on a postcard please to the Labour party, One Brewer’s Green, London SW1H 0RH.

Posted in Inside | 3 Comments »

London Labour party ignored union guidance on selection processes to fix Euro-list

29/04/2013, 02:50:10 PM

Reverberations from the London Labour party’s botched selection process for its European candidates rumble on: last week critical motions were passed at Streatham, Ilford South and Brixton Hill CLPs.

The emerging focus for unhappiness is the opaque selection criteria used by the London Labour party panel in making their decision. Calls for the regional party to explain the criteria were central to the motions passed last week.

Uncut can help out the quizzical CLPs in their quest for the criteria: there wasn’t any. Don’t take our word for it, this was the response from Joy Johnson, a senior member of the selection panel, when Uncut challenged her on how the selections were made:

“Did I discuss the criteria? That is Alan Olive’s domain and the answer is that there isn’t one…”

That’s right, to be an MEP for Labour, the London party had no preference on the type of experience a candidate should have, their track record or any political achievements. There wasn’t even a mention that being an effective campaigner might be an asset for prospective candidates in a London-wide PR election.

Strange, you might think. For most jobs there is a specific set of criteria against which candidates are scored. Otherwise, where there are several candidates – say, 98 in the case of the London Euro-list selection – how would the panel be able to make a systematic comparison and select the best qualified applicants?

There certainly are detailed criteria for the parliamentary selection process with guidance for constituency selection panels on how to apply them and administer a fair process.

(more…)

Posted in Inside | 8 Comments »

Confusion reigns over London Labour Euro-list selection as candidates dispute senior official’s story

19/04/2013, 10:59:31 AM

The fiasco over London Labour’s Euro-list selection descended into chaos this week with candidates querying a senior official’s version of events.

On Monday, Uncut ran a piece on the grassroots revolt in London over the selection process for Labour’s European election candidates. In the article, Joy Johnson was identified as one of the key officials on the London selection panel.

She contacted Uncut to complain that her position in the process had been misrepresented. To be absolutely clear on her role in the overall selection procedure we put a question to her:

“Did you discuss the selection criteria, process or any prospective candidates with any of the other members of the panel?”

Her response was posted in the comments to the piece, “You asked did I discuss the short list the answer is NO.”

It seemed an oddly specific response. The question didn’t even mention short lists and was much broader in it’s ambit.

Subsequently, over the course of this week, Uncut has been contacted by several candidates interviewed to get onto Labour’s European short list, perplexed at Joy’s response.

Each of the candidates Uncut has spoken to has been clear: Joy Johnson did attend their short listing meeting and took an active part in the interviews.

Speaking to Labour’s London candidates, it has emerged that the party decided its short list of European candidates at two meetings before Easter on Saturday 23^rd March and Sunday 24^th March. The title of the mail sent out by head office to candidates was very clear: “European Parliament selections Short Listing Interview.”

Last night, we contacted Joy Johnson with this information and her stance appears to have evolved.

“There was a meeting to decide on candidates who were to go forward for interview. I wasn’t at that meeting. I didn’t discuss the list that went forward for interviews. As for the weekend you mentioned…I was at that meeting…As part of the interview process there were discussions to get to the final list that would then go out to party members” (emphasis added)

The new position is that Joy Johnson did attend short listing meetings, she did interview candidates and then did discuss with her colleagues on the panel which candidates would be on Labour’s European short list .

Confused? Many are.

It seems that when faced with the initial question from Uncut, rather than simply give a full answer, Joy Johnson opted to parse. But she got confused between the long listing (sifting candidates before interview) and short listing (interviewing candidates to make Labour’s short list of European candidates).

For someone who was Ken Livingstone’s former director of communications, it’s an astonishing way to deal with the media.

(more…)

Posted in Inside | 12 Comments »

London Labour revolt over Euro-list fix grows

15/04/2013, 11:09:28 AM

Perhaps the leadership thought no one would notice? That no one would care about the fixing involved in selecting Labour’s European election candidates?

Well, the evidence is that they were wrong. Very wrong.

The lightning rod for emerging discontent in London is Anne Fairweather. Ahead of the 2009 European elections she was the top choice for Labour members, securing almost 3,500 votes, comfortably ahead of the rest of the field.

As Peter Watt and Jon Worth have noted, this time round, she was rejected by Labour, without even an interview.

In the past week anger has been rising across London with a slew of motions about the London selection being passed at grassroots level.

Anne’s branch in Brixton Hill passed a motion calling on the regional board to explain their decision. Bloomsbury ward in Camden passed a motion condemning the selection process,

This branch expresses its disappointment that Anne Fairweather has not been placed on the long list of candidates for the London Labour European election. As the third-placed candidate on the Labour list in London in 2009 she worked hard to increase Labour’s vote share at a difficult time for the party, and would have been elected as the third London Labour MEP after Claude Moraes and Mary Honeyball had the region of London not had its tally of seats reduced to eight. For 2009 she topped the ballot of London Labour members which decided the order on the list, winning more than 3000 personal votes. Denying members the ability to choose whether or not to vote for her again is undemocratic and this branch calls for this decision to be explained in full and reviewed by the national party.

Moreover, we will need strong and experienced advocates for a pro-EU reform agenda in what will be a very tough campaign next year. More strong campaigners are needed in leading positions if we are to return a Labour government in 2015.

Thornton and Clapham Common branches in Streatham CLP have passed similar motions with branches in Southwark, Islington and Redbridge expected to back motions calling on the regional board to explain their rationale.

In each motion, the central questions are the same: how does someone go from Labour’s leading European candidate to not even meriting an interview? What has changed?

Based on the evidence, it seems that while Anne Fairweather remains very much the same candidate so strongly endorsed by Labour members at the time of the last European election, control of key decision-making posts is now in the hands of the resurgent left.

Her crime seems to have been to work in business and not be one of the chosen candidates of the unions and the left.

(more…)

Posted in Inside | 15 Comments »

Cameron’s GCSE history fail as he gets facts on Churchill wrong at spring forum

16/03/2013, 01:05:20 PM

Oh dear. What would Michael Gove say? In David Cameron’s speech today to Conservative spring forum, he reaches back into the annals of history to describe how past Tory leaders have supported aspiration.

The speech has been briefed to the media as being about an “aspiration nation” and given its to the Tory grassroots, who better to cite than Churchill? The prime minister states,

“Great Conservatives down the generations have put those ladders in place. When Churchill invented the labour exchanges that helped people into work. When Macmillan built new homes. When Thatcher fired up enterprise so people could start their own businesses.”

Except when Winston Churchill legislated to create labour exchanges in 1909, he was of course a Liberal MP and President of the Board of Trade in one of the great progressive governments of the last century.

A government that was opposed tooth and nail by er…the Conservatives. A government whose plans for pensions and social insurance in that year’s budget were repeatedly defeated by the House of Lords prompting a constitutional crisis, at the behest of er…the Conservatives.

On the specific issue of labour exchanges, Tory grandee and MP, F.E.Smith, summed up the views of many of his colleagues in 1909,

“Not only will the establishment of labour exchanges not add to employment, but if they are to serve the only purpose which they can economically serve the necessary consequence of their establishment must be actually to diminish employment.”

David Cameron doesn’t just get his facts wrong, in his speech he is attempting to re-write history, implying by rhetorical sleight of hand the Tories were in favour of an agenda that they actually viscerally opposed.

Following on from his rebuke by the UK Statistics authority for confusing the terms debt and deficit, and his upbraiding by the Office for Budget Responsibility for his misleading words on the impact of austerity on the deficit, this is just the latest in a series of events where David Cameron has been caught out being economical with the truth.

The teaching of history in schools is an issue particularly close to Michael Gove’s heart. Eighteen months ago he described it’s importance in developing the abilities of GCSE students saying,

“One of the skills I would like to see students develop is the ability to argue and separate falsities from the truth.”

Perhaps a little chat with the prime minister after the next cabinet would be in order.

Posted in Inside | 4 Comments »

Oh dear David

13/03/2013, 11:43:41 AM

Rarely has there been a more potent medium for political self-harm than twitter. That chirruping little app makes it so easy for our elected representatives to comment, so simple to give an immediate view that sometimes the brain cannot keep up with those furiously prestadigitating fingers.

Last night, while sitting distractedly in the House of Commons chamber, David Lammy gave the viewing public a little insight into his unmediated thought process. Observing the latest BBC tweet on the election process for the pope, he was outraged. What was all this talk of black smoke? And what? White smoke? This would never do. Onto twitter immediately:

That showed those purveyors of “crass and unnecessary” prejudice at the Beeb.

Whoops.

The comments soon started to pop up. Tentative explanations that the BBC tweet was about how the pope was selected. Others opined that maybe this was a rather wry joke by our battling hero.

David was soon back on, clarifying his position,

Ah, right. Cue the follow-up questions from the crowd. Some sought guidance on how to describe a chess board in a non-prejudiced way. Or a photograph that wasn’t in colour.

As the tweets piled in, David saw the error of his ways and owned up to his mis-tweet mistake.

In all, a comparatively minor episode, barely registering on the Aidan Burley scale of complete and utter tweeting disaster. But a salutary lesson nonetheless for MPs everywhere: when idling in the chamber choosing between your bird based apps, stick with the angry variety and give the little blue one a miss.

Posted in Inside | 1 Comment »

The runners and riders to succeed the pope

11/02/2013, 04:00:02 PM

It might not be a form of politics that the Westminster village is familiar with, but the papal succession is nevertheless pure politics.

There are factions, rebels, personality clashes and fickle electors a plenty. Behind closed doors debates rage about how to maximise reach in new markets like Africa and Asia, turn back the opposition in these markets (that would be Islam) and how to rebuild a declining base in Europe. The economy and global austerity could even influence the selectorate of cardinals.

At this early stage, the choice seems likely to be forward looking. So it will be a new generation that takes the papal helm – “new generation” in this case meaning someone in their early 70s rather than knocking on 80. But don’t expect a liberal choice, the conclave of Cardinals that elects the pope has been packed with conservatives over the past years and doctrinal orthodoxy will be one of the entry level criteria.

So who are the runners and riders to succeed Benedict? Here are three to watch.

Cardinal Wilfred Fox Napier, Archbishop of Durban – the media candidate

At the time of the last succession in 2005 there was much talk of the potential for a black pope. Back then the Nigerian Cardinal Francis Arinze was the leading candidate, but the mood of the papal conclave was too conservative. Now 81, Arinze is seen as too old and Cardinal Wilfred Napier (72) is this year’s great black hope. From a media perspective, interest in an African pope would be intense and expect to see stories in the coming days heralding to the Catholic Obama.

Napier is known as passionate advocate of social justice, going so far as to oppose a papal visit to South Africa in 1988 as legitimising the apartheid government. But he is also the driest of dry on the Catholic touchstones of contraception and abortion. He is a resolute backer of church orthodoxy on the use of condoms in preventing AIDS

Napier’s main rival from Africa is likely to be Cardinal Peter Turkson, Archbishop of Cape Coast, Ghana. Turkson has similar beliefs, but controversially, authored an economic critique of the world financial system in 2011 that called for the establishment of a global public authority and a “central world bank”. All fine ideas, but unlikely to find favour with many governments or the important American market.

Cardinal Angelo Scola, Patriarch of Venice – the Italian

Of course, there’s got to be an Italian. If the papal conclave wants to play it safe, Cardinal Scola (72) will be a hot favourite. The Italian lobby will already be pointing out there hasn’t been a local pope at the Vatican since the 1970s and Scola has a good biography. The son of a truck driver, he could use his formative experiences in post-war austerity Italy to lay claim to understanding the current concerns of working people around the world.

Scola’s scholastic interests in trying to find a way to avoid a “clash of civilisations” would position him well as a concilliatory sounding champion in the global competition for converts that is being contested with Islam. He also has impeccable organisational pedigree – three of Scola’s predecessors as Patriarch of Venice have gone on to take the big job in the past 100 years: Pius X, John XXIII, and John Paul I.

(more…)

Posted in Inside | 5 Comments »

Hogan-Howe will go over plebgate

24/12/2012, 07:05:58 AM

Back in October, Uncut made two predictions: that Andrew Mitchell would resign (down to the day he would go) and he would use the CCTV footage of the incident on Downing Street as the basis for an inevitable fightback.

Now a further prediction: the Metropolitan police will be looking for a new commissioner early next year. Bernard Hogan-Howe will resign.

At the moment he still thinks he can survive but this is about to change. As the new police investigation progresses and evidence mounts that key details in the log book were fabricated, the focus will move onto three areas: first, accountability for the mess; second, Hogan-Howe’s judgement over the past fortnight and third, why there wasn’t even a cursory investigation into Andrew Mitchell’s version of events at the time of the original story.

Bernard Hogan-Howe was appointed to bring more hands on, visible leadership to the Met. His reputation in his former bailiwick of Liverpool was as a leader with a grip of the detail on what was happening in his force.

Now on Bernard Hogan-Howe’s watch, it is likely that some of his policemen will have attempted to frame a cabinet minister. This constitutes one of the gravest potential acts of police corruption in recent years.

To think that at least one serving police officer could be charged and convicted in this affair and no senior officer take responsibility is inconceivable. In this context, given Hogan-Howe’s mandate, it is hard for him to abjure ultimate accountability.

Second, his judgement, over the days since Michael Crick’s explosive report, will surely be called into question.

(more…)

Posted in Inside | 8 Comments »

Andrew Mitchell plots his revenge on the police federation

26/10/2012, 03:49:22 PM

At the start of last week, Uncut predicted Andrew Mitchell’s demise. On Monday 15^th October we said he would be gone on Thursday. In the event it turned out his departure was announced on Friday, though he actually made his decision to quit on Thursday.

Now, Uncut hears he is plotting his revenge.

It has been widely reported that he quit after concluding that he had lost the confidence of the 2010 intake of Conservative MPs. True. But this is only half of the story.

Andrew Mitchell had also concluded that, given the state of the media firestorm, he could not mount the robust defence needed to clear his name, while still chief whip.

He remains convinced that he has been the victim of a political hit job by the police federation. Friends of Mitchell say that despite the battering he took at the hands of the media, he will not give up.

More than his notorious temper or a desire for revenge, his primary motivation is his career. Andrew Mitchell is not prepared to accept this as the end.

In 1997, he was a rising star, destined for the cabinet when he lost his formerly safe seat in Gedling. That could have been it. Many others accepted their fate. But not Mitchell, he came back from that disaster, returned to parliament and made it into cabinet.

The former chief whip accepts it will be difficult, but he sees a route back to centre stage and is more determined than ever to get his side of the story across.

Mitchell’s defence will rest on a stopwatch.

(more…)

Posted in Inside | 8 Comments »