Progress director Angell horrifies with ‘Baby P’ tweet

Progress director Richard Angell appalled Twitter users this afternoon with a tweet in which he used the tragic death of ‘baby P’ in an argument about Labour’s National Executive Committee (NEC) decision to ask – they did not ‘tell’ – Haringey council to pause the progress of a controversial transfer of council housing to a private developer.

When challenged over his support for the letter, the HDV and the council leader behind it, Angell responded by using the death of the tragic toddler to shore up his argument:

angell p.png

The angry response was widespread and more or less immediate.

shanly rara gen

ra gen 2.png

Some, however, had a different – if no more flattering – perspective:

rc ra.png

Others – rightly – challenged Angell’s claim that the ‘HDV’ involves social housing, without neglecting the obvious:

ra m.png

According to journalist Aditya Chakrabortty, the HDV contains no provision for social housing, but instead contains only vague references to the completely different ‘Affordable Housing’ – shot through with so many get-out clauses as to be meaningless.

The definition of Affordable Housing, according to homelessness charity Shelter is:

shelter affordable

The SKWAWKBOX understands that several complaints have been made to Labour’s ‘compliance unit’ about Mr Angell’s comment.

We contacted Mr Angell to ask:

Your tweet today about the HDV and Baby P seems extraordinarily ill-judged, not to say crass.


1. the NEC was centrist-dominated at the time of P’s death.
2. Since he died, wouldn’t it have been better if the NEC had been aware and intervened?
3. George Meehan, the council leader at the time, was told by the party to resign or be sacked
4. The HDV is not to rebuild social/council housing. It has a very unclear ‘Affordable Housing’ clause but that’s entirely different as you will be aware.
5. I understand the comment has already been reported to compliance. Will you apologise and retract?

Comments? By return pls if you’d like them included

He responded:

Richard Angell, director of Progress – Labour’s centre left pressure group said:

Many of those in last week’s discussion on Haringey were on the NEC back when Haringey was failing its poorest and most vulnerable resident, including the new chair of Disputes Committee. The left faction on the NEC at the time did not take a view, nor try to call in the decision-making of the local party. The party can have a view on the performance of a local council, not seek to run it – for good or bad. Their autonomy is important, it is councillors not the NEC who have legal obligations and their accountability is to the public and local members. Today’s letter from council leaders makes this point strongly. They contrast the well run council Haringey now is and its fast improving schools with the council Claire Kober took over after the failures around Baby P came to light.

“At this time Labour was in government, it was the Secretary of State who intervened not the Labour party. This is an important distinction, one NEC members should also draw. “There are huge differences about the HDV but the clear intention of the administration is to improve social housing in the borough. People who suggest otherwise are not just disingenuous but wilfully contorting the actions of comrades who sign up to the Clause Four values of our party. The NEC who discussed this matter with no notice, paper work, representation from the council clearly cannot have considered all of the facts and have played into the hands of the Liberal Democrats locally – another first.

Mr Angell’s comments about the powers of the NEC understates the clear wording of the party’s rules, which state:

nec intervene.png

The NEC’s right to act as it did seems beyond question according to Labour’s own rules. Readers will form their own judgment about the decision by the director of Labour’s main Blairite pressure group to ‘weaponise’ the memory of the tragic ‘Baby P’ to argue a contrary position.

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.

If you wish to reblog this post, you are welcome to do so – see here for more.



  2. The RW bringing the party into disrepute again, and for what, petty factional point scoring. Has he no respect for the family of Baby P?

  3. Seem to recall that, rightly or wrongly, Labour centrally certainly intervened in the running of Liverpool council in the 80s. Obvious they can constitutionally and right they do when necessary. No Labour councillor can, or should, be able to act without regard to the view of the party in general.

  4. Angry comments quite right , fine and understandable but more important is effective action to remove Angell from the Labour party .
    As far as I can see he has clearly brought the party into disrepute in this case. It will be illuminating to see how the official complaints regarding his behaviour are now handled.

  5. Get rid. and Baby P was just that “A baby” So what had he got to do with the schools? He wasn’t old enough to go to nursery never mind school.

  6. I understood replacing, not rebuilding, to be the plan.
    If you can’t even get your lies right…

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: