Watson facing trigger/deselection meeting Tues

Labour’s unpopular deputy leader Tom Watson is facing a vote of West Bromwich East Labour members on Tuesday evening to decide whether he should be ‘triggered‘ – should face a full selection contest against other prospective candidates for the seat.

An email has gone to members of Friar Park branch informing them of the meeting this Tuesday at the Millennium Centre, Friar Park Road, WS10 0JS starting at 7pm:

Members of the branch who have been members of the party for at least six months by 28 August 2019 are eligible to participate in the trigger vote. Any members whose subscriptions are not fully up to date can participate by paying their arrears on the night.

Members not arriving by 7pm will not be allowed to participate. Those wishing to vote should bring a form of photo ID and their membership card.

West Bromwich East has seven branches. If all seven hold trigger votes, this means that three will need to vote for a full selection contest. If any branch does not hold a vote, the threshold would reduce to two.

The agenda for the meeting will be:

AGENDA

  1. Welcome by Chair and introduction of Executive Committee member to oversee
    proceedings
  2. Report from Door Steward on members present
    (Any eligible member arriving after this point will not be allowed to participate)
  3. Outline procedure
  4. Election of Tellers
  5. Distribution of statement from Member of Parliament and Chief Whip’s report
  6. Members allowed 15 minutes to read statement and report
  7. Discussion on the merits of a full selection. Each member can speak only once, and for
    not longer than three minutes
  8. Ballot
  9. Chair to declare result of the ballot, then close meeting

The other branches in the CLP are Hateley Heath, Greets Green, West Bromwich Central, Charlemont, Great Barr and Yew Tree, Newton.

This article originally stated that Tuesday’s trigger meeting is the first in West Bromwich East. One branch meeting took place last Friday.

SKWAWKBOX view:

Tom Watson will be sweating on the results of these meetings. Many members are reportedly unhappy with his conduct.

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 or here for a monthly donation via GoCardless. 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.

38 responses to “Watson facing trigger/deselection meeting Tues

  1. Since when was photo ID required as well as a Membership card to take part in a vote like this.
    Never seen it in our CLP.
    Is this another “cunning plan” to disenfranchise members or is it normal?

      • Need to establish what ‘a photo ID’ is. Thos with a passport or driving license will already have one. What about the rest? What counts? Members should have this information, to ensuret that they will be eligible to vote. It needs (urgently) to be put out to all members before this meeting.
        .

    • Good point. You can vote in a general or local election without one.

      In practical terms – even given that memberships of CLPs has increased – the combination of a membership card and checks on the door with a list of paid-up members should be adequate.

      Last 4.5 years? – I’ve not known it in 40 at branch or constituency level – and I have been a branch secretary.

      I’m not a rule-book junkie, but I reckon any meeting that bars someone with a valid membership card might be up for challenge itself.

    • “Since when was photo ID required as well as a Membership card…”

      That’s our very well organized right-wing faction for you! They have already started the shenanigans. It’s minute details like these that are going to exclude vast majority of the membership and ensure TW & Co. get selected. Until the left are proportionately represented in rule-making bodies, we are going to end up with these right wingers as our candidates.

    • I see that Kevin Schofield and Margaret Hodge have supported her which cannot help.

    • Your right should be rounded down to 2, if it was 8 you would round up to 3
      Basic accounting
      Why has this not been challenged

      • Guys, I haven’t re-read it but pretty sure the wording was “one third or more” – in other words, no less than one third.
        No rounding down.

  2. Why..would any CLP wish to retain Tom Watson or any of his mps that support him…..If he and others survive scrutiny then I am going t be extremely disappointed…..but just look how little notice we are given….It’s a case of providing the procedure is correct….damm the result……life of brian judean popular front comes to mind….but the laughs on us and Jeremy Corbyn……

    • Makes one wonder how many members support these right wingers – it would be possible to theorise that Watson’s local supporters number in the very low hundreds.
      Makes one wonder how many it would take to guarantee swinging any normal vote with normal attendance.
      Makes one wonder where he recruits them from.
      Maybe the local Conservative Club?

    • “Why..would any CLP wish to retain Tom Watson or any of his mps that support him”

      I will be surprised if this happens. But if it does, the answer to your question is all around in this Johnson-led Brexit looking-glass fairyland that is England.

      The other thing to look forward to is how the media will use a Watson deselection. Watch the creation of a martyr.

  3. David…..its difficult to understand how anyone who is right wing would wish to join Labour…especially with the history of the Labour party?Weve always had old dinosaurs,but this breed of right wing are closer to fascists than centrist or aliberal……Mann,Watson Benn Harman,cooper and more than a hundred more…….They didnt all get recruted in the blair years….one of life’s mysterys…..but at least today I have found out where John mann served is apprenticeship in Hatred and bigotry…..Lewes in Sussex …CLP….my former home and very breifly a member of the local Labour party…..Paisleys adopted home and is son kyle a local chaplain at the jirah chapel…..we can learn a lot from squawkbox!

    • To add to your insight, John Mann’s political formative years were earlier spent in Lambeth and also working for Tom Sawyer with the role of breaking the LP-TU link.

    • Joseph, some here call it “broad church Labour,” but Labour having softies and the Tories having softies that both call themselves “centrists” makes the differences between the parties look marginal to much of the potential electorate, who don’t bother voting. That helps the Tories.
      The whole Tory party and Labour’s ‘centrists’ have no plans to reverse the burgeoning wealth gap.
      The only possible – THE ONLY POSSIBLE – end result of that is the 1% owning everything and our children being their tenants and serfs for ever.
      Or many of us and all of them dying violent deaths, probably this century.
      Tomorrow would be fine with me. I don’t hold with dictators, especially incompetent fucktard neoliberal frontmen like Johnson.

      • You may find this article of interest

        The Capitalists Are Afraid
        They know the reigning ideology of neoliberalism no longer has any credibility. Its lies have been exposed. They also know they are to blame.
        byChris Hedges

        Capitalists seek to maximize profits and reduce the cost of labor. This sums up capitalism at its core. It is defined by these immutable objectives.

        It is not about democracy. It is not, as has been claimed, about wealth creation for the working class. It has nothing to do with freedom. Those capitalists, especially in corporations, who are not able to increase profits and decrease the cost of labor, through layoffs, cutting wages, destroying unions, offshoring, outsourcing or automating jobs, are replaced. Personal ethics are irrelevant. Capitalists are about acquisition and exploitation.

    • http://www.edlis.org/hodge/grudge/

      As always follow the money.

      Some are heavily invested in hedge funds and want to be a part of the manipulation of politics for currency changes and the like. Some are deeply invested in defense industries and Labour used to be great for jumping into wars on false pretenses.

      You can make a lot of money as an M.P., not by salary, but by other opportunities. When many of those now facing re-selection first stood the pig’s trough flowed much more richly than now, though it is still attracting new snouts.

      And after you fear deselection, jump into a job outside the House of Commons. Sit on boards, offer consultancy or become an antisemitism Tsar!

  4. Shame the Party did not opt for open sections/mandatory reselection though. If that had been the case, we would be hearing about Tom Watson’s challengers, not about whether a contest is to go ahead at all. Reform needed here!!

  5. The CLP want to make sure they don’t get sidelined with an Email saying the meeting has been Cancelled, Wouldn’t put anything passed this fraudster.

  6. I’ve been told that ONLY 14 people were told about the meeting and they ALL voted for him to stay. Surprise, surprise.

    • What a sneaky Twatson! Bet he’s really proud of himself, too, for treating democracy like a Boris!

      • timfrom 12/09/2019 at 4:07 pm

        Four of Tom Watson’s branches have now voted to support him, all unanimously.

      • timfrom 12/09/2019 at 4:25 pm

        If so, this would only go to show how easy it would have been for left leaning members to have got their act together and turned up to force a reselection vote. Think about it.

      • Well that’s the weird thing. I’d got the impression that there was widespread discontent with Watson locally, so if he could restrict news of the ballot to just 14 trusted constituents, something is clearly rotten in the state of West Brom.

        Did he give everybody else a false meeting starting time/day, perhaps? Or was it the reported “intimidation”? Were they not able to mob together for strength in numbers, knowing they’d be up against 15 or so Watson supporters there?

        Something ain’t right!

      • There doesn’t appear to be any evidence (so far) that there has been any foul-play.

Leave a Reply