“we believe that there is a real risk that the re-interview process will not be conducted in an equitable and non-discriminatory manner” – and group threatens to call for campaign ‘strike’ if party interferes
The Labour Black Socialists group has called on Labour not to interfere in Anna Rothery’s prospects of becoming Labour’s candidate for Liverpool’s executive mayoral election in May – expressing “shock and dismay” at the party’s decision to delay the process to delay voting re-interview the three candidates before ballots are sent out to the city’s Labour members.
The party has not explained the delay. Although one reason for the interviews, revealed by SKWAWKBOX, is concern over the ties of Ann O’Byrne to a council company criticised in a report for its unaccounted cash dealings and loans to businesses connected with the company’s directors – including £20,000 to one organisation to employ O’Byrne’s daughter – supporters of Anna Rothery fear that Labour’s machine will also use the process to end or tarnish her campaign after she expressed support for former leader Jeremy Corbyn.
A spokesperson for the group told SKWAWKBOX:
As Labour Black Socialists we are shocked and dismayed at the announcement from the Labour party delaying the ballots for the selection of its candidate in the Liverpool Mayoral election and the re-interviewing of all three shortlisted prospective candidates. There has been no explanation from the party why it has taken such measures and it has been revealed one of the candidates is under scrutiny. We believe that prospective candidates of good standing should not have to go through the interview again as this could be seen as prejudicial and discriminatory.
The ballots were due to come out on Tuesday 16th February, but they’re now arriving on Monday the 22nd February. The delay and re-interviews are felt by many members to be a demoralising bureaucratic obstruction imposed for partisan political purposes and not in a spirit of fairness and transparency.
Many Black, Asian and other ethnic minority heritage members – and ordinary Labour members in general – see this as an intimidating move by the Labour leadership.
We have specific concerns that Ann Rothery, the only Black candidate for the Mayoral selection, is under threat from the party because she is seen as a socialist whose concerns for the community are unimportant and out of line with the priorities of the Labour leadership, which we feel to be misguided and divisive.
As Labour Black Socialists we believe that there is a real risk that the re-interview process will not be conducted in an equitable and non-discriminatory manner. Should this transpire we stand ready to support our comrades in the Liverpool Labour Party and the communities they represent. In line with our Campaign for an Actively Antiracist Labour Party, this could include calling for the withdrawal of support from the Labour campaign for Liverpool Mayor.
No candidate should be subjected to this degree of uncertainty and disruption to their campaign and the negative impact on confidence and unity that these delays have clearly created.
We remind the Labour Party and its leadership of their obligation to run an equal and fair selection process.
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 without hardship, 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.
Sadly something that can be used against Anna Rothery is her attack on Esther Giles when Ms Rothery demanded for Esther not to be plataformed on a Labour event on Freedom of Speech by labelling Esther a transphobe.
Well done !! to Leah Levane and Matt Wrack for defending Esther during the event by pointing out that Esther should have been kept as a speaker.
For the record, I am in favour of self id for trans sisters but ,find the way this issue is escalating with socialist sisters opposed to self id deeply disturbing.
The Black Socialist Group needs to speak up for free speak and persuade Anna Rothery to apologise..
I support the strike action proposed by the Black Socialist Group too, only that in this occasion unless Anna Rothery apologises, I would include her in my strike action.too.
Attacks on freedom of speech are far too important to ignore, Ms Rothery needs to apologise first and I would be very willing to support her campaign, once she sees the error of her ways.
She can of course support self id for trans sisters, I support self id too but, I feel very strongly that it shouldn’t be set as a red line to denay their right to freedom of speech to other socialists but, rather as an issue that needs to be debated among sisters and the wider party, aim to persuade rather than demonise those sisters that at present disagree on self id..
Why do people remain in a party that treats them and others so badly? There are all of these groups suffering with what seems to be historic abuse of many types. Why do they stay and even worse support such a movement with their time, hard work and money? Why not look for alternative ways to fight the elites and their allies? Hardly a day passes without more accusations levelled against the Party. Goodness, party loyalty in these circumstances will not stop bigotry, wide ranging abuse and attacks.
Beacuse the LP has the word “labour” in it;’s title and uses the “S” word when it is convenient to do so. Just as the NSDASP had the S” word in its name, it wasn’t socialist either!
The Black Socialists don’t matter to Labour. The clue is in their name – they are Black and they are Socialist . Therefore the party does not care about them or their feelings. The only form of racism the party hierarchy is willing to acknowledge and oppose is antisemitism while as for Socialism we only have to look at the way socialist have been name called and mistreated to see how Socialists are viewed – expulsions and suspensions of us – the dogs scum thugs vandals homophobes antisemites bullies Trots etc of the party
The PLP has never lifted a finger to help Black MPs who have been racially and sexually abused. Their treatment of Diane Abbott for example has been appalling – no help or support ever from the PLP. People like Jess Phillips Harriet Harmon and Yvette Cooper who have milked their alleged feminism for all it is worth never gave her one iota of backing. Phillips even laughed at Diane on TV and later boasted she had told Diane to F..k Off. The Black women MPs called her a “white feminist” because of this – she would speak out on behalf of white women but not Diane. Cooper and Harmon wasn’t as openly aggressive towards Diane as Phillips ( who was promoted by Starmer) but she never helped her.
The Black Socialists have no chance of any support from Starmer and the others in their call for a fair and open candidate selection process and I can only suggest that they contact both EHRC and solicitors about potential race discrimination proceedings which most of us would be happy to crowd fund.
Can anybody help me understand what’s happening here?
When Labour Black Socialists (LBS) calls on ‘Labour’ not to interfere in Anna Rothery’s (or any other candidate’s) prospects for selection as Labour’s Liverpool’s mayoral candidate, who or what are they referring to/ pleading with/ warning?
Does the rulebook allow such an action, or, like the Myanmar coupe, is something very dangerous, anti-democratic and untoward happening here right under members’ unsuspecting noses?
Who are the ‘Labour’ players here and in what capacity are they acting? I have no idea, and would like to understand better.
qwertboi, I’m sure I remember some diktat, last month – perhaps, a couple of months ago – which decreed Evans would have the final say on Nominations. Sounded a curious decision, to me, at the time
Whether that meant, solely, Parliamentary seats, or the whole kit and caboodle, to include Mayoral down, was never made clear.
It’s all become fairly opaque – pretty shambolic.
Bath night, tomorrow night. Maybe Starmer and/or Evans will have another bright idea, whilst bathing.
Bath night, tomorrow night. Maybe Starmer and/or Evans will have another bright idea, whilst bathing.
Hopefully it involves an experiment to determine if mains-powered electrical items can operate just as well underwater…
Querty, yes, so would I.
This manoeuvering will have as its objective excluding socialists. It will be dressed up as something else.
marty: “My impression is that this re-interview process has absolutely everything to do with either prejudices or support for socialism and is to ensure that any of the candidates who may have been involved in socialist sympathies are excluded from the ballot paper.”
I wonder who has (or is assuming) the authority to impose a re-interviewing process, a question for Skwawkie’s party sources maybe.
You might be right, marty. Until someone assures me this process is legitimate and legal, I’ll suspect it is a LabourRight control tactic, but I still want to know what nameable individual(s) is/are imposing the process. I’m sure any integrity checks that the awful O’byrne/BIC issue necessitates, could be undertaken without this interruption to the selection process.
My impression is that this re-interview process has absolutely nothing to do with either prejudices or support for Corbyn but is to ensure that any of the candidates who may have been involved in financial impropriety is excluded from the ballot paper. If there are any doubts about the integrity and honesty of any candidates then this needs to be exposed now, before it is too late. Surely this is something that every member of the party should support,
The Labour party have a solemn duty to the people of Liverpool to ensure that the Labour candidate for Mayor is a person of the utmost integrity
If the candidates have nothing to hide then they have nothing to fear.
My impression is that this re-interview process has absolutely everything to do with either prejudices or support for socialism and is to ensure that any of the candidates who may have been involved in socialist sympathies are excluded from the ballot paper. If there are any doubts about the political reliability of any candidates then they need to be excised now, before it is too late. Surely this is something that every member of the PLP should support,
The Labour party have a solemn duty to the people of Liverpool to ensure that the Labour candidate for Mayor is a person of the utmost integrity who will not upset the NuLab apple cart
If the candidates have nothing to hide then they have nothing to fear, or “Who is not with us is against us”
marty – You are entitled to your opinion, we’ll see who’s right in a few days.
Steve H
Candidates for an Labour position are normally vetted before the interview process. What’s happening here is they are re-running the interviews because they don’t like the outcome
Smartboy – It is far more likely that something has come to light in the intervening period that needs clarifying before Labour can endorse all the candidates.
Who would they normally be vetted by, and is it that same person/function who is now re-vetting the candidates I wonder?
You know, when the Labour party leader is a ‘member’ of the Trilateral Commission (to preserve/promote neoliberal hegemony) and when he also contracts the services of a Unit 8200 former Israeli Defence Force cyber-warfare intelligence officer (Assaf Kaplan), it is proving difficult to be trusting.
We need rid of this man Starmer.
Reply to Steve H
If something comes to light that would disqualify a candidate after the interview process then that person is disqualified – you don’t re-interview all candidates just because one of them has slipped through the vetting process in error. No Steve H its as plain as the nose on your face what’s happening here and just further discredits those responsible.
If the ballot papers are going to be reissued on Monday it will be interesting to see if all three original candidates will be on the list. If there are a set of new candidates. Would that not mean whoever is responsible for this may have been annoyed and have plotted replacements all the long.
Obviously info has come to light that the ‘nothing to see here, mate’ attitude of one of the candidates when asked about financial impropriety of themselves or their associates may not be true. Far better to re interview then approve (if possible) all candidates and have an election, than have an election and the following day the winner is banged up and it’s all over the papers.
It’s not called ‘Murkeyside’ for nothing.
I don’t think we want a situation where fingers are pointed at socialist politicians saying its part of their political philosophy to steal, line the pockets of their friends, not have to account for cash etc etc. It may be ok in Venezuela but hopefully not here.
You’ve got to admire those who speak for the silent majority. However, who knows what they believe if they’re silent.
Just moire cult of new Labour 2.0 silly games to desperately make sure their cult member gets elected and of course the evil socialist not. I just find this intensely stupid that a supposedly left party despite there ideological leap to the right Tory-lite BS under Starmer but still calls itself Labour and socialist? Why because they want people to keep on voting for the party they were but certainly not now…
I don’t understand this desire to endlessly fight and struggle like this endlessly against a machine determined to remove socialism from the party by any means. So I ask why to stay if we’re not wanted? Fine, it’s time to set up a truly socialist only movement for once and for all.
“Labour Black Socialists group expresses ‘shock and dismay’ at possibility party might cut Black candidate Rothery out of mayoral selection”
Doth they protest too much, anyone would think they know something that we should all be aware of.