Breaking comment

Breaking: Vaz attempts to crash NEC meeting on leadership process

Right-winger stepped down at general election after Labour’s National Executive withdrew its endorsement over parliamentary censure

Former Labour MP Keith Vaz turned up at today’s meeting of Labour’s National Executive Committee (NEC) to decide the process for the election of the party’s next leader – in spite of Labour withdrawing its endorsement of his candidacy after he was censured by Parliament.

Vaz stood down at the general election and has been replaced by Labour’s Claudia Webbe as the new MP for Leicester East. He had been censured by MPs after they found he had ‘expressed willingness’ to buy cocaine for male escorts – receiving a six-month suspension from Parliament which he did not serve when the general election intervened – and was facing suspension by the party pending investigation had he not quit.

The SKWAWKBOX understands that Mr Vaz attempted to enter today’s meeting, which many on the right of the party want to decide a process that helps their preferred candidates and their recent attempts to encourage right-wing ‘entryism’.

He was ultimately not allowed to participate.

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.


  1. On what basis can Vaz possibly believe he is entitled to participate in an NEC meeting? The guy’s brains are addled.

  2. He is the BAME representative on the NEC (no matter how dodgy the so called election was). He had attended the NEC in that capacity, how can whatever problems he had at his (ex)workplace affect that? I personally think he should be expelled for bringing the party into disrepute, but the NEC hasn’t done that and he is therefore entitled to keep whatever positions he holds in the party.

    Unfortunately what can happen now is that there could be a legal challenge to whatever decision the NEC reached because a member of the NEC was excluded from the meeting.

    1. You may well be right, let’s hope they checked with lawyers before sending him on his way.

    2. I’m afraid that the NEC is useless at one of it’s prime requirements : to function in a rigorously legalistic manner to ensure fairness and equity. It’s a basic requirement – but, as we have seen with the disciplinary processes, is more observed in the breach.

      The question is simple, and doesn’t reside in the matter of the desirability of Vaz as an individual : is he still a member of the NEC? It shouldn’t be rocket science to determine the question.

      I’m p’d off with my membership fees sustaining incompetence.

      1. On what basis do you assume incompetence? It’s quite possible that they determined that he no longer has membership in a legally thorough way. If not, truth will, I’m sure. come out.
        But like the troll you are, you write your assumptions as fact. They’re not. At least until you have some evidence to support your nonsense.

      2. “like the troll you are”

        Are you really that thick, heenan73? Or don’t you have that excuse?

        As to evidence of incompetence – have a look the mess that has been the disciplinary procedures, not least of which was one that deeply involved Vaz – when he was just a malleable tool.

        Then there’s the disaster of the IHRA adoption, where the NEC didn’t show any evidence of distinguishing between shit, shave and breakfast time.

        If you didn’t have so much difficulty in untwisting your knickers every day, , you’d realise that I’m simply saying that the grounds for the exclusion of Vaz should be clear.

      3. Your love of cherry picking knows no bounds. There’s no connection between the three cases you mention, and there are very different reasons for the decisions made. If you knew who was on the NEC, you’d be able to make much better informed judgements on why certain decision are made.

        That doesn’t mean I agree with those decisions (and some others) I don’t. But I’m sure there’s plenty of decisions made that some people will disagree with, and others not. It’s called, er, politics.

        Incompetence is not the issue here, and you know it. You are just – as usual – seeking the damage the LP.
        Because that’s who you are.

      4. … and even if they HAD made ‘incompetent’ decisions in the past (rather than decisions you disagreed with), that is NOT evidence on this occasion.

        You are simply ranting at …. at what?

        What’s the point? Vaz was ejected, and he went quietly.

  3. The fact Vaz is still around is an indictment of the way the Labour Party is run. Anybody else in the country would have been asked by police about the cocaine he was getting for prostitutes. He should be in HMP WANDSWORTH rather than feather bedded in Westminster. Don’t ordinary laws apply to men like him? Is cocaine a a Class A drug? Are people imprisoned every day for messing with it let alone offering to DEAL in it? – that INVARIABLY attracts a prison sentence!

  4. So the entitled NEC have a mtg with one of the entitled vaz .Even off his head could he make any bigger a mockery than their decisions have been.,re Williamson ,Livingston and walker…the laughs on all of us….left wing majority in the NEC…whos kidding who ?and momentum approved candidates…..fiefdom rules.!

    1. The NEC has a very small Left majority. And most of then were elected, not entitled.

  5. He is not fit to be in the NEC. When he changed his mind about Chris Williamson being expelled due to media pressure, on the basis that he was on medication and not thinking properly he competent lost all credibility. That in addition to his sleazy behaviour with young males

    1. Offering to supply a Class A drug is a serious offence. Presumably he wouldn’t promise that if he couldn’t keep the promise? You’d think there would be some interest from his senior colleagues or the Police?

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: