The SKWAWKBOX covered earlier today the fact that Labour’s NEC (National Executive Committee) is not currently looking to make the position of General Secretary – the highest staff position – an elected one as had been rumoured, along with the comments by a senior Labour insider on the situation of the incumbent, Iain McNicol.
Various CLPs (constituency Labour parties) have passed motions of no confident and other resolutions of censure on Mr McNicol and the East Sussex CLP of Bexhill and Battle has now joined them with the following, which was passed last week.
The current general secretary of the Labour party, Iain McNicol has allegedly brought the Labour Party into disrepute on numerous occasions.
The most recent being in relation to the allegations that he is disingenuously attempting to impose a particular voting system on the young labour conference.
This follows suspicion that the official Labour party general election campaign was poorly run with resources wilfully misdirected.
That rules were broken at the 2016 conference that led to two additional seats being guaranteed on the NEC
Suspending thousands of Labour Party members on spurious charges. Many who remain in suspension. Even worse there are those who have been expelled without due process, the right of representation or without the right of appeal. This is unacceptable.
If these repeated concerns are based on substance the General Secretary should be held ultimately responsible for these actions. We call on the NEC to suspend Iain McNicol while a thorough disciplinary investigation is carry out into these allegations.
The pressure on McNicol is building ahead of the party’s annual Conference, which starts next weekend. With the NEC meeting on Tuesday, he may be in for a trying week.
The SKWAWKBOX needs your support. This blog is provided free of charge but depends on the generosity of its readers to be viable. If you can afford to, please click here to arrange a one-off or modest monthly donation via PayPal. Thanks for your solidarity so this blog can keep bringing you information the Establishment would prefer you not to know about.
Reblogged this on acarercornwall999.
He’s enjoyed a charmed existence.
Time to bring the curtain down on his toxic career.
Thanks for covering our CLP we have been talking about it for a while! As you can guess it was not an easy task as there is more than a few old guard!
It’s just a gesture unless enough other CLP’s take up the call and we get back control of our party.
Couldn’t happen to a ‘nicer’ bloke.
Surely I can’t be the only one that is mystified as to why the Labour Party ever got itself into the position of handing so much power to an unelected and unaccountable official.
McNicol and his sidekick Watson are a legacy from the days when the membership were almost totally ignored. Those days are rapidly coming to an end, as should the Labour Party careers of McNicol and Watson.
The NEC is on notice.
If this individual is not removed from office with immediate effect then only one conclusion can be drawn.
That conclusion is that the NEC is a corrupt committee which allows corrupt practise to routinely take place within the Labour Party.
The electability of the Labour Party depends upon Iain McNicol’s removal.
Government is a matter of trust. If the highest internal committee of a party is corrupt, how can that party be trusted to govern the country?
Absolutely, couldn’t agree more.
And if McNicol’s removal is being hampered by the GMB union not wanting to lose the face/influence of having one of their own being deposed, they might want to give some thought as to why they didn’t have a quiet word in his ear when McNicol, Watson and a bunch of other snakes were bringing absolute disgrace upon themselves, most notably during the leadership challenge.
Can’t have it both ways, GMB. If you work to keep McNicol in place, you own the stain of his (ongoing!!!) misconduct as well.
Whatever happened regarding the allegations that Labour Party Membership Data was given under McNicol’s watch to Coyne a candidate for the GS of Unite?
Ongoing!
As secretary of the CLP I would point out under 5% of of the over 800 members eligible and invited attended the meeting in question of whom 24 or 3% voted for this motion.
Thanks for the info, Roger. What number and percentage voted against it?
14 against with several abstentions – which no doubt you will describe as ‘the overwhelming majority of party members’.
It was a motion properly submitted, properly debated and properly passed under CLP standing orders but I do feel the need to disabuse anyone of the notion that it constitutes the opinion of more than the 3% of the members of this CLP who turned up at the meeting and voted for it.
So, significantly more turned up to vote against it than turned up to vote for it. Democracy in action – and how it’s done for all the other votes. Decisions are made by those who turn up.