Analysis comment

Labour delays NEC election result – to allow time to remove more left-wing votes

The Labour Party has delayed its announcement of the result of its elections to the party’s National Executive Committee by approximately five hours – to give it time to remove more votes cast by left-wingers.

The result was due at lunchtime today but has been delayed by five hours or so and the party has confirmed to the BBC that this is to allow it more time to disqualify votes cast by members who qualified to vote but subsequently resigned:

Labour has decided that votes cast by those who subsequently resigned are invalid, but two things are clear:

  1. there is nothing in the rules of the contest stating that those casting votes must still be members by the date of the result for their vote to count
  2. all or almost all of those quitting since the ballot opened are on the left of the party either out of disgust as Starmer’s lurch to the right or over the suspension of Jeremy Corbyn

Labour’s hierarchy also switched the voting method of the contest to ‘single transferable vote’ for these elections, guaranteeing the Labour right a number of seats that the faction’s numbers would not normally allow it to achieve. There is considerable suspicion among the left that the latest manoeuvres reflect an attempt to ensure that left candidates do not outperform the right’s hopes.

If there is any suggestion that the vote cull has influenced the final results, a legal challenge is expected – and rightly so.

The SKWAWKBOX needs your help. The site is provided free of charge but depends on the support 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 to set up a monthly donation via GoCardless (SKWAWKBOX will contact you to confirm the GoCardless amount). Thanks for your solidarity so SKWAWKBOX can keep bringing you information the Establishment would prefer you not to know about.

If you wish to republish this post for non-commercial use, you are welcome to do so – see here for more.


      1. Just this minute came to this page/article, and like the good little Starmer right-wing shill he is, SteveH is monitoring all the comments posted AND ‘Replying’ to most of them, and doing so in a matter of a few minutes. But then THAT is what he gets paid for!

    1. I’m not in the least bit embarrassed, I can’t see any reason why I should be. I made a mistake and corrected it as soon as I could.
      As for your gibberish question could you please clarify what you are asking me.

  1. A novel and distinctive form of voter suppression: develop polices in such way that many members resign.

    1. And who gave Steve H the above results and whos fiddling the figures?I do love reading a good crime and intrigue novel with a sprinkling of “Black Opps”

      1. Joseph – f’ off with your Trumpian nonsense. I made a mistake and corrected. Get over it you numpty.

  2. The Party don’t do refunds, so if the subs you’ve paid take your membership past the ballot date surely even if you said you’re resigning you are still a member until your subs expire and your vote should count?

    1. John – Only if you are rather perversely advocating that the party should ignore a members wish to resign from the party.

      1. SteveH, has the resigning member indicated that he/she does wish for her ballot to be counted? If he/she has, fair enough.
        Otherwise, are you rather perversely advocating that the Party keeps the money but makes sure that the vote isn’t counted despite been nothing in the rules of the Labour Party stating that a vote can be recalled after been cast?
        Please SteveH explain, how removing a vote but not returning the money is democratic?

  3. Even BEFORE the results are announced, Evans and Sir Keir Rodney Starmer need a MASSIVE legal challenge.

    1. Switching the voting method to make democratic choice less apparent and effective, and then twisting the result by RECLASSiFYING whose votes to allow. Democratic rigormortis.

      Labour died when Sir Keir Rodney Starmer was appointed Leader.

      1. SteveH, what about taking votes out of a ballot after they were cast, when the member was still a full paid up member of the Party at the moment their ballots were cast?
        What next? If a member votes by postal vote but dies before the election date, shall we fish the vote and take it out too?

      2. Maria – Why would you or any other party member think it was good idea to accept the votes of ex members who had already declared that they no longer supported the Labour Party.
        You seem to have failed to grasp the fact that these dis-allowed votes were cast by individuals who were no longer members because they had already resigned their membership. I’m a little surprised because it really isn’t a difficult concept to grasp.

    2. qwertboi – I really don’t see there being any realistic possibility of a successful legal challenge.

  4. We are re jigging the figures Judas H gave you ..Do not adjust your eyes and the smell will be dealt with in our fiefdom from HQ shortly….You will obey the master at all times and no discussion about the votes whatsoever children.Now move along there “nothing to see” move along children.!

  5. Why are we so surprised by what the right can come up with? e.g. he Smith, Lavery & Trickett findings shouldn’t have been publicised until on the day so that Starmer couldn’t prepare.

    1. itsmespeakingtoyou – The No Holding Back Report doesn’t appear to have made much impact so far, maybe it’s a slow burner.

    2. itsmespeakingtoyou -The fact that by your own admission you have so little faith in the strength and veracity of this report that you believe that the only way you can use it to score points is to ambush people with it, is very revealing.

  6. New socialist movement nailed on now,after this fiasco…!You can’t reform this sort of democracy because it is ridiculing the Labour membership and that should be the last straw or go and see a shrink.about Stockholm syndrome..and how to run from a crazy cult.

  7. Plenty of legal questions to be answered by Steve H and who and when the list I copied was given to him.I am sure the winners announced on here by Starmers man exclusively for us must raise awareness of just whats being going on at robbers roost HQ Labour fiefdom and misfits club?…Very embarrassing for little stevie and I think his check for end of month will be dealt with in the same way the voting is….cut ✂and snip and add a smattering of right wing votes…any deceased members will be counted.

  8. I’d throw every last one of the “centrists” in the harbour – but I wouldn’t demand my vote be counted after I’ve left an organisation.
    It’s analogous to wills and inheritance – when you’re dead you should have no right to impose your will on the living. Everything an individual owns should revert to the whole community – ie the State.
    If you want to be a socialist you have to accept things on principle that you might not like in practice.

    Great to see wee Dom trudging up Downing St. with his wee cardboard box.

  9. If a person’s vote becomes invalid once they leave the party, I wonder whether a person’s vote becomes invalid if they die before the results are announced. Can a dead person be a member of the party? And how far in retrospect can a a person’s vote be invalidated? If I voted in a local election four years ago, say, and resigned only a week ago, does my four year-old vote become invalid?

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: