Breaking: expanded composition of Labour’s supreme disciplinary committee

lab rose

Labour’s National Constitutional Committee (NCC) is to be approximately doubled in size as one of numerous democratic victories emerging from the party’s annual conference in Liverpool.

The expanded committee will number twenty-five people and six of those will be directly elected by Labour’s constituency members. A further eight will be electee from Labour’s affiliated unions.

Candidates for the CLP positions will need to have been members for five years and to obtain nominations from five CLPs including their own.

The process will open in early October and close 25 November. Currently CLPs must have sent at least one delegate to this year’s conference in order to vote, in keeping with the usual procedure for NCC members to be elected during Conference, but this may change as some CLPs have been unable to send delegates for financial reasons. Only sixteen delegates from Scotland for example, are at this year’s conference out of some seventy constituencies.

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 for non-commercial use, you are welcome to do so – see here for more.


  1. Hooray! Another Left triumph for Swark to boast about!

    Oh, but hang on, don’t more NCC panels mean more expulsions?


    Skwark should get a merit award for Gullible of the Year.

    1. Not necessarily. It also means more serious consideration of cases and time saved by easier rejection of spurious cases.


      You could be the main contender for Unthinking Halfwit of the Year…..

  2. Labour membership 500+ K , Affiliated union membership 200K , SO why only 5 positions for the membership and 8 for the unions ?
    After the sell out by the unions on OS I’d think they deserve bloody ZERO

  3. Danny takes perhaps an homogenous view of the larger NCC, a significant number of the larger and perhaps more representative NCC may actually be able to identify where critical thinking has been demonstrated and when it has not. Re only 16 of Scottish CLPs out of 70 being able to send delegates – we really need to pool resources and make a fund available to CLPs in poorer areas, not as charity but as political solidarity and as one Scottish speaker said his CLP could only afford one delegate when a CLP from a richer area had 16! Is some odd practice from some socialists, in the CLP in my area I know some members have been trying to be Confetence delegates for years but one person went 2 years in a bloody row! Labour needs to look at a lot of it’s Conference practice. And at Confetence could technology be harnessed where delegates registered that they wanted to speak on an issue and the Chair could select members by number whilst taking account of gender balance etc. But watching much of Confernce on channel 81 is great to see pro-JC delegates speak!

  4. I seem to remember a pooling system for travel expenses.. every constituency paid the same amount to the LP and the expenses were doled out according to the location of the CLP. Less or nothing for close by and a lot for the furthest reaches.

  5. Giving CLP names and some prospective speaker details in advance would be a gift for any session chair seeking to “overlook” potentially awkward contrbutions from the rostrum.

  6. No people could just register as a number and perhaps identify themselves as Male, Female,, LGBT, Black etc and a good and fair chair would then select people by anonymous number but could ensure a balance of males, females etc. are called so we hear a range of voices – these are only draft ideas and need working on but we need a better system.

    1. Quota Systems, but never a mention of social class? Your chosen ones chosen to ‘represent’ their gender; their sexual orientation; their race…….who says any individual can or should do that? How many categories will you have…variations of age differences; religious beliefs; disability; perhaps even blood groups (A rh.neg. under represented?). Who decides the criteria in this parallel representative universe? Politicians do not represent themselves. their own beliefs or their own kind? The quota system is sophistry masquerading as democracy; someone who looks like me, is the same age as me & has the same sexual orientation as me will represent my interests? Does this mean that I should never vote for a woman because she can never represent me? Empathy is dead.

      1. My Ideas are only a first stage in development – do you have any ideas re how in a large Conference of people you can give everyone a fair chance to speak (from those who want to) whilst ensuring the debate is not dominated by one group ie men etc remembering women for example are 50% of the population. Why you could even have a balance of those for or against so we hear both sides of an argument. It’s no problem in small meetings but is in large ones plus some people don’t have the confidence to speak to a large hall through a mike at the front on stage. I watched the conference and about what 45 minutes a day is lost by people just getting to the bloody podium so mikes at every seat may save time and make people feel more comfortable in speaking but their faces could be shown on the screen (though people could opt out of this). Could also count if someone has already spoken in previous debates to give others a chance first, and of course in some debates no-one may speak against a motion or for, for example. I think the NEC should get a working party up to look and how Conference is run – we need to catch up with the 21stC!

  7. Excellent idea, shove a few more bodies onto the NCC, but the same old disciplinary/appeals rules still apply. The rules that the Chakrabarti report denounced as not fit for purpose.

    These rules ensure that once accused the system is stacked against the member. The NEC chair of hearings can decide what evidence they review. In my case, that blocked my defence of abuse of procedure making only one outcome possible. The Compliance Unit under Jane Shaw is corrupt. She works with CLPs to ensure they get the result they want, irrespective of the evidence or circumstances. The system as it stands has been corrupted by the right of the party under McNicol and has to be stopped.

    Labour has said it is reviewing the procedures for disciplinary/appeals but in the meantime it is still being used to silence or remove mainly Corbyn supporters. Gordon Nardell is supposed to be reviewing the procedure, but appears to be at best dragging his feet over getting to grips with the problem.

    If Jennie Formby was sincere in what she says about making the system fairer, she would suspend all the outstanding cases, give the eminent barrister a shove and put a hurry up on making the system fairer.

    1. Was it the: ‘Equal rights & police protection for anti-Corbyn, anti-socialist, bliarite MP’s what allow the truth to get buried under hyperbole and hysteria; in association with – and proudly sponsored by – the right wing media’ march??

  8. I watched bits of Conference on channel 81 and noticed how much time was wasted in delegates actually getting to the bloody podium! And it takes some courage to get up and speak in a mike on stage to a loud hall. Perhaps the NEC could set up a working group to look at how Conference is actually run and we could harness technology to catch up with the 21stC! For example why not mikes where people are, sat, saves time and may make people feel more confident in speaking. People could register by seat number and self identify and the chair could take a balance of male/female speakers etc, for and against, from the front, middle, and back of the hall. We could have a rule that those who want to speak can only for a maximum of 3 times and take those who have not spoken yet first next to give everyone a chance? You could even show the faces of the speakers on the large screens (but people could opt out of that if they wanted). Just some food for thought!

Leave a Reply