CLPD statement on northern candidate stepping down indicates new pick likely

split slate.png

On Friday Kaneez Akhtar, one of the six candidates on CLPD’s slate for the National Constitutional Committee elections announced that she was stepping down, adding:

I believe all Labour Party national committees should reflect its membership and its representatives should come from various geographical areas.

I fully support the IHRA definition of antisemitism and was indeed proud that Bradford Council adopted this definition.

To represent the Labour Party is an honour and a privilege. I wish all the candidates the best of luck.

The statement was presented as evidence that Jon Lansman’s claim that CLPD’s slate was skewed in favour of London and the south-east – ignoring the obvious illogic that Akhtar is a northern candidate and was stepping down.

CLPD has responded with a short statement indicating that the organisation believes she was pressed to step down – and that a new candidate is likely to be put forward in her stead:

We understand that Kaneez has been put under pressure to withdraw. We are seeking further info and if true will ask another BAME woman candidate to put her name forward.

The pressure on Akhtar appears not to have come from a local source rather than from Momentum, at least in any direct sense.

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.

13 responses to “CLPD statement on northern candidate stepping down indicates new pick likely

    • I thought mentioning support for IHRA was strange.
      Reads like a message from a hostage at gunpoint trying to pass on a clue.
      Or a resignation letter dictated by a Whip with proof of something career-ending.

  1. If she did support the IHRA then it is good she has withdrawn. The IHRA is a Zionist net to trap and gag members and needs to go. We don’t need people on the executive who will not stand up to Jeremy Corbyn’s enemies.

  2. “The pressure on Akhtar appears not to have come from a local source rather than from Momentum, at least in any direct sense.” This statement in your story Skwawk does not make sense. What does it mean. Who put pressure on her?

  3. Seems obvious to me that someone on CLPD didn’t do due diligence, but when they realised she supported IHRA she was pressured to stand down. If a member of the CLPD slate started cheer leading for IHRA it would really raise the ire of the membership.

  4. Blair’s Labour, Clinton’s Democrats, Australian Labour Party (Groaniad syndicates to all three): parilamentary Left versus Right = neoliberal militarism plus “diversity and inclusion” versus neoliberal militarism plus homophobia sexism and racism.

  5. Just to add. Corbyn’s Labour being anti-austerity anti-militarism plus “diversity and inclusion” has bust their little Westminster game. The anti-semitism card had to be made up and repeated repeated repeated as the only possible trump. This is because Israel doubles as a homeland for Jews in one regard (without taking into account the Palestinians) but functions crucially as a lynchpin of Nato and IMF policy in the Middle East and globally. Any country aiming at a stance independent of Nato in the Middle East is touted as “an existential threat to Israel.” Hence the sight at every new bombing of the most vocal and leading support coming from LFI members.In the march against the Gulf War (the first one in 1990) a BBC interviewer asked a German participant if she thought people might not find the march “anti-semitic”. Corbyn frightens the life out of the John Boltons Blairs et al as it points to a crucial ally not even supporting the sanctions and bombing of Iran!! etc

Leave a Reply