comment

Labour First moans because right-wingers falling foul of voting rules Labour right brought in

Artist’s impression of a Labour First spokesperson yesterday

Right-wing pressure group Labour first is up in arms because their ‘entryist’ voters are falling foul of due process checks on their eligibility to vote.

Labour First bleated in an email to its supporters yesterday that some of the people it signed up to vote in the Labour leadership election have not yet received ballots or have been disqualified on ‘spurious’ grounds, such as their name not being on the electoral register.

Of course, the email didn’t mention the fact that the checks of which their supporters are falling foul were put in place by Labour’s National Executive Committee (NEC) when it was dominated by Labour First and its allies.

Which means that the real scandal was the suspension of tens of thousands of Labour members during the 2016 leadership contest on genuinely spurious grounds – which some of Labour First’s supporters boasted about facilitating – and the approximately 100,000 members denied a vote in spite of legal action.

But of course, the omission of such details and a bit of shameless hypocrisy are hardly a new feature of the Labour right, as their response to the suspension of Trevor Phillips over islamophobia complaints has recently demonstrated.

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.

16 comments

  1. Well, he’ll what goes round comes round……. Is all that needs saying. Sort of self-inflicted.

  2. Meanwhile – as has been pointed out, some of us long-standing members have also not received ballot papers.

    ‘Brewery’ and ‘piss-up’ are terms that come to mind when thinking ‘central administration’…. although ‘alacrity’ is more the term when it comes to suspending people for expressing viwes central to Labour principles.

  3. Not having your name on the electoral register can hardly be described as ‘spurious grounds’.

    Perhaps the election will be a lot closer than was thought.

    I voted for RLB and rather more enthusiastically for Richard Burgon.

    I urge all visitors to this blog to do the same.

    1. You can join the Party from the age of 14, but people don’t generally get onto the electoral register until they’re 18, so there’s one valid reason not to be on it.

      Also, students may be on the electoral register at home, but be members of the Party in their university town (as Universities no longer routinely register students to vote, that’s possibly quite likely), and so wouldn’t be on the register there.

      So not everybody not present on the electoral register is necessarily a fraudulent application to join the Party.

      1. True. But that would require investigation and investigation does take a bit of time.

      2. Very true, Tony. But my point was that not every case of somebody not appearing on the electoral roll is down to nefarious reasons, and could be entirely legitimate.

  4. In the post truth era of fake news I wonder if ‘political sensitivity’ is a manifestation of ‘Identity Politics’ or ‘extreme virtue signalling’? Freedom of Speech is the one safeguard we have in a healthy democracy that can ensure our society cannot become fascist; speaking truth to power. An obsession with banning people for statements with which we disagree or find offensive, is dangerous…..we have a right to be insulted (no joke)! Grow a skin or develop a sense of humour, but no platforming is sinister. “Even the dull & ignorant, we too have a story to tell”.

    1. Steve R, free speech is a double edged sword. Should we allow someone to call from a platform for all Catholics, Muslims, Jews to be killed? Some will say but that’s different it’s hate speech. Of course it is but if we say we should not allow it, are we curtailing ‘free speech’? Conversely should we allow it in defense of ‘free speech’?

      1. Although the bordelines can be a bit contentious, I don’t think that it’s too difficult to discriminate between the controversial/uncomfortable/challenging critcism of views and beliefs and antagonism/hate/violence towards those holding the views.

        I can quite easily hold the view that the current nature of the Israeli state is insupportable without hating Israelis in general – and certainly without confusing an apartheid state with Jews in general.

      2. RH, I agree, but there are those who say ‘free speech’ should be allowed under all circumstances to enable even the most heinous views to be challenged. In those circumstances I’m not sure if I agree with free speech.

      3. Comrade Jack,
        there are limits to complete ‘Freedom of Speech’ that coincide with ‘natural justice’. I trust you know the difference between incitement to hate & simply being insulting?

      4. The boundaries are where genuine debate should focus – there are decisions to be made.

        Personally – where there is doubt, I would usually err on the side of freedom, since the alternative is – as we have seen – worse.

    1. The Laurel and Hardy theme tune runs through my head when I read such reports on LP. Of course the current Gov and political sphere is Hitchcockian for much of the population with a big dose of Gaslight thrown in.
      Just like the so called Democratic party in US, LP and ‘establishment’ would rather have Johnson than Corbyn and made damn sure that happened.

      LP members now also have the US style choice of the ‘lesser evil’ or least worst for leader. In such a large party the leadership candidates demonstrate that size isn’t everything.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: