Analysis Breaking News

Jama, Pidcock table NEC motion to ban retrospective punishment and rescind expulsions

Pair condemn retrospective punishments ‘against natural law’ and call for unlawful expulsions to be rescinded

Labour national executive (NEC) members Nadia Jama and Laura Pidcock have tabled a motion for the NEC’s next meeting later this month demanding an end to retrospective application of the right’s ‘proscription’ of left groups – a practice that even the Labour right has admitted privately is unlawful.

The party’s right-wing regime, having forced the original ban through the NEC earlier this year, has been applying the rule in a way that is not only against the natural principle that no one should be punished later for doing something that was allowed at the time, but which wasn’t even agreed at the NEC meeting that passed the rule.

Thousands of Labour members have been targeted for even the most nebulous link with the banned groups, with one even expelled simply because a group’s social media account mentioned them. Councillor Pamela Fitzpatrick was expelled – after a 5-year campaign of abuse by the right – for being interviewed by one group about why she was standing to be the party’s general secretary, while Unison left-winger Lilly Boulby was expelled by the right-wing machine to remove the left’s democratically-achieved majority on Unison’s ‘Labour Link’ committee.

The motion reads:

Motion submitted to NEC

This meeting notes that at the National Executive Committee (NEC) meeting of 20th July NEC
members were presented with a paper which resolved to proscribe four separate organisations
for their incompatibility with “Labour values”. The proscription of those organisations (Socialist
Appeal, Labour Against the Witch hunt, Labour in Exile & Resist) was passed by a majority at
that NEC meeting, but not unanimously.

Throughout the discussion that occurred at that NEC meeting and in the papers preceding the
meeting, there was no mention of the retrospective application of the decision to proscribe
these organisations nor, crucially, was there a clear, exhaustive, description of what constitutes
‘support’ for the organisations listed.

At the request of many National Executive Committee members, a discussion took place at a
subsequent NEC meeting about both of these substantive points of contention – namely of
the retrospective application of the proscription of these organisations and of what
constitutes ‘support’ for them. From that discussion it was clear that there were wide ranging
interpretations of what was agreed at the July NEC meeting which made the decision to
proscribe the organisations.

This meeting believes that:

1. If the ruling body of the Labour Party (the NEC) cannot agree on what was decided on the
20th July NEC meeting, particularly in relation to how these rules are implemented, then the
Labour Party should not proceed to implement them.

2. Retrospective proscriptions are against the legal principle that people cannot be guilty of a
criminal act that was not illegal at the time of the offence. This ‘natural law’ principle is
especially pertinent for disciplinary cases, and the Labour Party should adhere to these
principles in its dealings with its own members.

3. There is an urgent need for clarity over who determines whether a member has met the
threshold to be investigated and the criteria to be employed to determine if a member is given
extra time to respond, the criteria that would be used to exonerate the member under
investigation and who makes that decision.

Therefore. this meeting resolves that:

1. A discussion must be convened at this NEC meeting to determine what constitutes ‘support’
for these organisations and a detailed examination of the process by which any future groups
are proscribed.

2. The retrospective application of this rule ceases and that all members who have faced
disciplinary action and investigation because of any ‘support’ for subsequently proscribed
organisations before the date of the 20th July NEC meeting should have that action rescinded.

Proposer – Laura Pidcock
Seconder – Nadia Jama

The pair are still waiting for confirmation that the motion will even be heard. Tragically for justice, the right-wing majority on Labour’s NEC and the right’s lack of principle mean that even if it is debated, it faces almost certain defeat, regardless of the obvious wrongs of the party administration’s application of the rule and the fundamental issues with the very idea of proscription.

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.


  1. That Nadia Jama and Laura Pidcock have to table a motion to end the highly illegal retrospective application of the right’s ‘proscription’ of left groups – a practice that even the Labour right has admitted privately is unlawful and a sign of their utter own desperation and contempt for members, speaks volumes about the workings of the Labour party. I’m glad they are doing it, but I despair that they need to

    Starmer’s right wing regime needs to be cancelled and chased out of the Labour party forthwith.

    1. Have any of those who have been expelled from Labour publicly resigned their membership of the proscribed organisation and / or made a a clear and unequivocal statement that they no longer support the now proscribed organisation(s).

      1. Have you? Do you believe that it should be the case that people state they don’t support an organisation. The list could be long. I’ll start off …. I don’t support the Tories. Your turn ……………….

      2. Joe – I can confidently say that I am not a member nor have I supported any organisation that has been proscribed by the Labour Party. If I am ever in such a position in the future then I will have to make a decision which organisation I choose to remain a member of.
        Your attempts to extrapolate the issue beyond that are just silly hyperbole

      3. You’re asking the wrong fella, Joe. Wee fella only voted for keef because:‘he was best if a bad bunch.’

      4. “Have any of those who have been expelled from Labour publicly resigned their membership of the proscribed organisation and / or made a a clear and unequivocal statement that they no longer support the now proscribed organisation(s).

        Is that the response that Bully-Boy Starmer and you would prefer? Were you bullied as a child stevieh? Is that why you think the way you do – respecting authority and anti-democratic bullies?

      5. qwertboi – Another silly distraction from yourself to deflect from my question.

      6. Why should they? Retrospective punishment is intrinsically unjust. The right can’t even wait until they show some new expression of support – and is construing as support things that clearly are not, even if they weren’t retrospective and unjust

      7. Steve – Why wouldn’t they?
        If you are a member organisations and it decides that the membership or support of the another group is incompatible with membership then you have a simple choice to make.
        Do you know if any of those who have been expelled from Labour publicly resigned their membership of the proscribed organisation and / or made a a clear and unequivocal statement that they no longer support the now proscribed organisation(s).

      8. “Is that the response that Bully-Boy Starmer and you would prefer?”

        shoulda answered. No! But a good few thousand members and maybe 150,000+ former members are now more likely to “support” – or at least better consider – said proscribed organisations. I know I am!

      9. Joseph – Who’s this ‘Hall’ guy that you keep obsessing about❓

      10. I hope laura pidcock a genuine left mp feels better with having a “Motion” but like any constipated patient its just one of the symptoms in a very sick Labour party…The Hospital is closing down and she along with jama will be expelled from the Labour party.ITs worrying that the left wing socialist members dont “get it” .even the mps and former mps…really dont understand that its not a moment in the history of a great movement for the working-class but a total takeover and under new ownership.,…its over Turn of the power to the property and cut off the water.

      11. Joseph – Laura Pidcock is mow an EX-MP who between 2017 and 19 managed to turn a winning majority of 8,792 into a loss of 1,144.

      12. Thanks for the correction Steve H Hall,I meant to say former MP,which gave you the chance to rubbish her.A lesson learnt mr Hall.

      13. Joseph – Just reminding you of the facts
        Who is this ‘Hall’ bloke that you keep going on about❓

      14. Reply to Steve H
        What surprises me is that the Labour party’s right to proscribe organisations seems to be unquestioned. The leadership/ Southside need to be reminded that we are voluntarily members of the party, we voluntarily support the party financially, we voluntarily do unpaid work as campaigners for the party and we voluntarily chose to vote for party candidates. The party needs us a lot more than we need it and therefore it has a cheek to dictate to us in this way.
        On the issue of retrospective sanctions this is contrary to every concept of natural justice and is exposing the dark side of the party. Its actually very scary that a man who was DPP thinks this is OK.

      15. So you are trying to say they have still done something wrong and that the onus is on them, and you are simply ignoring the unprincipled conduct of the NEC in making these rulings retroactive. It’s pretty clear what your true agenda is.

      16. Martin – I’m not trying to say anything I simply asked if any of those who have been expelled from Labour had publicly resigned their membership of the proscribed organisation and / or made a a clear and unequivocal statement that they no longer support the now proscribed organisation(s).
        If not then they obviously made a choice about which membership was more important to them.

      17. “I’m not trying to say anything”

        “If not then they obviously made a choice about which membership was more important to them.”

        Contradict yourself any? That’s often a sign of dishonesty.

      18. By the way, “If not then they obviously made a choice about which membership was more important to them” is clearly just a plain lie. They did not make a choice because they were not presented with one. That’s one of the many reasons why any penal system cannot be allowed to work retroactively. As I say, you don’t seem to have any problem with that at all, not a hint of condemnation for such an obvious corruption of the party’s legal mechanisms. Instead, just insinuations about the victims.

      19. >>or made a a clear and unequivocal statement that they no longer support the now proscribed organisation(s).

        Sure here you go I supported the Labour party all my life. As did my socialist parents and Grandparents and I taught my kids and grandkids the same to take it forwards….

        Or I DID now until we have a socialist only Labour movement I will NEVER again support this zombie party this right-wing Tory-lite abomination. I am so glad my parents have passed to never see this thing they so respected treated with such disdain and hate. Until the word socialist again means something to a Labour movement. Better yet whould be a socialist-only Labour party forever without this right-wing cancer of a party with a party. I will never waste my time, my money or my vote on them ever again!

        Bet there are far move socialists your cult of new Labour 2.0 has treated like crap that will never vote Labour again! Is far greater in number than the gullible useful idiots Tory-lite voters for this so-called Labour party. Just because it has a red rosette and calls itself the Labour party doesen’t make it so! I for one will never be fooled ever again into voting for such.

        I held my nose for Blair and all his new labour BS… Starmer and his cult of new Labour 2.0 even getting rid of him and Evens the cancer is too deep it’s just a zombie party with a rosette and name and hope people will ignore the stench. Better to let it die and start again, than stumble on bits falling off until it’s no more.

        So you want a statement there is mine! Bet it’s not what you were hoping for!

    2. I’m afraid Pidcock has been another massive disappointment,, she was yet another ‘left’ MP who failed to support Chris Williamson.

      1. Stop pissing in the wind and call their bluff
        Shatter the pretence they are Socialists and Democrats
        Get JVL to draft a response to Temporary Embarrassment’s LFI speech, enough to get it into court, get JC to release it
        Think Ken Livingstone on a bad day
        What we need is a showtrial

      2. Jack T, thank you. I had forgotten that. It’s climate change, my memory is blasted.

    3. “Laura Pidcock is mow an EX-MP who between 2017 and 19 managed to turn a winning majority of 8,792 into a loss of 1,144”

      No, No. No Stevieh. NO!

      It wasn’t Pidcock herself who reduced a 8,800 majority by 1,444 (thereby losing her seat). It was Sir Keir Rodney Starmer of the billionaires interest group, the trilateral commission.

      I’m pro-EU membership myself, but a democrat also and Starmer’s pretend anti-brexitness in the lead up to annd during GE2019 was a ruthless ploy to reduce his leader’s chance of becoming Prime Minister (which, of course, would have stymied the Covid Coup that the billionaires and militant capitalists planned many years ago).

      99.80% – the survival rate of those for whom coronavirus illness produces symptoms (it doesn’t for the vast majority)

      1. It was month after bloody month of ‘constructive ambiguity’ that did for Corbyn. He pissed all over his own USP and lost the electorate’s trust.

      2. “month after bloody month of ‘constructive ambiguity’ that did for Corbyn…”

        Maybe. But the ‘constructive ambiguity’ was necessitated by the right-wing Labour MPs who want the nameless trilateral billionaires to be at the heart of Labour’s thinking (and not in a ‘for the many, not the few’ kinda way). I’m sure Jeremy sees this himself with hindsight. He was duped and played! 99.80%

      3. qwertboi – Since standing down as leader Jeremy has clearly stated (on camera) that he had no option because the overwhelming majority (70% according to JC) of Labour members supported both a CV and staying in the EU.

  2. Jama, Pidcock = next to be expelled.

    (In case me original post disappears, like a few others recently)

    1. I agree Toffee both Nadia Jama and Laura Pidcock could be next on the list to be suspended/expelled from the Labour Party.
      That they are elected members of the NEC isn’t going to stop the Party machine to hunt them down in the same way the Party’s machine disposed of Pete Willsman.
      Do we know if Pete has been reinstated into the Party or is he still suspended?

      1. I’ve no idea, didn’t Willsman get suspended by Jennie Formby’s administration.

  3. Ooh well done those ladies!

    Maybe a crack in the dam is beginning to open – at last ..

    And all this about organisations which have been
    banned for completely unknown reasons – decided by
    an inner circle. The bans were then ratified at the end
    of a nine hour NEC meeting – after verbal presentation(s)
    defending the decisions of the .Inner Circle.

  4. STeveH – does that not depend on what you mean by SUPPORT?

    IN some cases “support” meant attending a meeting of 50,
    where another attendee belonged to that organisation. I
    might add that the offending meeting took place before the
    organisation was proscribed.

      1. Martin – I didn’t think there was anything to answer because it is so blindingly obvious that it depends on what is meant by support just as it depends on what the meeting he speaks of was about.
        Happy now?

      2. SO SAY IT, DON’T IGNORE IT. Especially don’t ignore it if you’re going to accuse others of evading, hypocrite.

    1. How do the bastards find these things out? Does Frankenstein and his army of the undead, do nothing but hunt for these ridiculous, torturous links? Stop paying them!

  5. But wee stevie voted for Corbyn twice…

    Tell us wee fella, if keef was challenged tomorrow by a candidate considered left of him – regardless of who it may be – who would you vote for?

    Answer carefully, sunshine. Bear in mind that any dissent whatsoever – perceived or actual – against keef’s leadership is sehr verboten.

      1. Stop trying to squirm your way out of it, you spineless get.

        You were asked who you would vote for REGARDLESS of the candidate, as long as they were to the left of keef.

        When push comes to shove, you’re as gutless as your idol. Small wonder you’re hated as much as him

      2. Joseph – If you don’t like the way I’ve framed my answer to your stupid question then that is your problem not mine.

    1. Toffee….Steve H Bot says No “..please re configure the question as appropriate under dear leaders commands….All customers of the Labour party must comply or will be “exterminated” …exterminate….exter..

      1. Joseph – Oh dear.
        If you had a vote who would you support from the left to challenge Keir for the leadership?

      2. ian Byrne….mp.but I think its its all a wasted effort from laura because it is maybe beyond redemption and the majority rule the Labour party..
        Fill your boots Steve H Hall.isn’t that what you have always wanted and now youve got it so why come on here taking the piss.You might find that by showing some respect you will get some followers who are still feeding the Labour party.

      3. Joseph – Who is this ‘Hall’ guy that you keep obsessing about❓

      4. Not suprised you’re confused Steve H Hall centrist Dad…davidh…sh and now part of the robbers roost Caribbean bolt hole in the Sun 🌞.ITs a long way from “small mill town up norf” or Bristol west country boy 👦but youve certainly confused the audiance and now it appears yourself.Dont worry Steve H it can make the condition worse as old age progresses and youve even forgotten who your knight is and what the Labour party have become… H its got worse with fascism being the dogma of your knight of the realm.

      5. Joseph – Is your memory failing you? You are confusing me with someone else, I have told you several times that I have no association, past or present, with either the West Country or Bristol.

  6. Its not against “natural law” (which probably is not even a thing) but against Natural Justice – which is. I only the leader of the Labour Party had access to a competent lawyer.

    1. Mark Francis, their is such thing as Natural Law, it was used against the Nazis in the Nuremberg Trials. Basic Human Rights are part of Natural Law.

      1. so we said when it suited us – but we deny it very easily when we need/want to Holby.

        Today the natural law hypothesis is only supported by socialists, theists, etc.. “Market dynamics” is much prefered by the neoliberals and takes the place of ‘natural law’ in their belief system.

  7. Membership of. and support for, Policy Exchange should be declared incompatible with membership of the Labour Party (not retrospectively of course).

  8. …… and there I was thinking peace was reigning since all seemed to be quiet on the Western Front, and he pops up again getting you all wound up (even SW). It’s the usual twaddle. Ignore it.

  9. If a thing is illegal & known to be illegal it cannot continue? Shouldn’t this be a case for those expensive lawyers to investigate @ EHRC? I take it it does not break criminal law?

  10. The key problem with this motion is that it only deals with one aspect of a much wider problem in which the Labour Party hierarchy and bureaucracy are operating outside of due process principles and standards.

    What is required is one or both of the following:

    1. A short straightforward motion compelling the Party at all levels to follow widely accepted due process legal principles and standards.

    2. A class action to bring the hierarchy and bureaucracy to heel on these matters.

    At present the Party at all levels is operating as a law to itself. As demonstrated in this example

    Where, to quote from the horse’s mouth:

    “Labour rules, unlike the actual law, are based on gender and not sex – therefore they go beyond the law, or as they would like the law, just like Stonewall does!”

    In practice this example is no different in principle – at least for those who don’t operate on the basis of ‘my gang right or wrong’ – to what is happening on an equally regular basis to non conforming members of the Jewish Community, J L members for example, who don’t toe the BoD/ FoI line and their convenient self selecting/self referencing pseudo definitions.

    If we are going to be serious about doing the business we cannot hope to defeat the Tory philosophy of one law for those we like and another for everyone else at the ballot box at any level. We have to act, and be seen to act, consistently to a set of principles and standards rather Han picking and choosing to suit.

    Though, given the stance and approach of too many fellow travellers in recent times, the odds do not seem particularly favourable.

  11. In what way is belonging to the Trilateral Commission in keeping with Labour values? Take a look at its publications. It argues there is “too much democracy”. It is heavily in favour of the rich and powerful. It will brook no criticism of capitalism. Labour? Starmer supports this thoroughly reactionary, indeed quasi-fascist outfit. Hardly a surprise given his taste for authoritarianism, elimination of dissent and apologism for Israeli apartheid. Odd isn’t it, that solely membership of left -wing groups is deemed incompatible.

    Orwell was right when he recognised in the 1930s that objective truth was disappearing from the world and we are at risk of a thousand years of tyranny. Right too that despotisms of the past lack the essential characteristic of totalitarianism. They were nasty, but they left space in which people could live against the imposed ideology. Try that in Labour. It is now totalitarian. Starmer has expelled hundreds of Jews, yet Corbyn is the anti-Semite. Yes, that’s what Big Brother says. The nightmare Orwell saw coming is upon us.We are all Winston Smith, but we won’t learn to love Big Brother, We will do all we can to bring him low.

    1. ….. and yet strangely enough nobody appears to have written anything new about them for decades and throughout the long leadership campaign of 2020 not one of the other candidates or members of the press thought it was even worth a mention.

      1. Steve H, now that was worth a mention. Why didn’t his opponents say anything? Fair dues, ☮.

    2. Frank just read Oliver Eagleton on Starmer on Novara Media (30/3/21) and see how Mr S as DPP visited another country where a suspect was being tortured, but Mr S did nothing to try to stop the torture, he just asked for the information the UK Govt wanted, a despicable human being?

  12. ‘The very decent but deluded Labour Left.
    Once again rolls a rock up that Labour hill.
    But the Right will easily roll it down again.
    As now in control they always will.’
    Everything hangs on if the Right in Labour gets rid of a number of the remaining Left Labour MPs which they can easily do?
    And if those Lefty ex-MPs are altruistic and have the courage, they could become a group for us hundreds of thousands of Corbyn supporters to rally around as a new Left Wing Democratic Party.
    And the Right in Labour would be finished.
    It’s like a game of chess and could be a Left Wing Checkmate.

  13. I am fairly new to the Labour Party – only 6 years and it
    \has taken me a while to get used to its rules and procedures
    in so far as they affect my Branch and CLP.

    I have now “joined up the dots ” and am ready to embark on
    a mission to use my experience to investigate the rules as
    they affect the Higher Level of our Party, in particular the NEC.

    My main focus is – as you might guess – the NEC and its
    secretary. Now the secretaries of both my Branch and CLP
    have a thankless task which involves a lot of donkey work
    writing minutes, assembling Agendas, informing folk
    of meetings etc and passing on the associated output to
    whom it might concern.

    EVERYTHING else is determined by those at the meeting –
    so ALL motions are put on Agenda. If there are a lot
    then we vote on what comes first and at the end any
    which have not been discussed are rolled over to the
    next meeting. Sometimes motions are withdrawn by
    the proposer if they are not relevant by the time they
    are considered ..etc etc

    That seems to me to be democratic so I guess that it
    is Labour Party policy ? ? ?

    So WHY does Evans have so much power might be
    my first question and I guess that the answer would
    be a hollow laugh – so my real question is “HOW
    does he get away with it.. ?” followed by “Is there
    any way we can stop him?”

  14. Hmmm – well I have had a brief excursion into the rules and procedures
    concerning LP meetings and discovered there are rules concerning
    every part of the Party

    – at CLP,
    Branch Level,
    LGBT etc
    in other words EVERY consituent part
    EXCEPT the NEC

    Have read the other posts carefully and see that
    my concerns have been addressed by the demand
    for the use of “Natural Law” in determining what should
    happen at NEC meetings- as a start – and along with
    much else.

  15. Its nice to see Laura Pidcock is alive and active
    Does anyone have any analysis as to why she lost her seat? Was it because of the Brexit (Starmer induced) policy reverse? Or is there more that we are not aware of, locally?
    Also why would anyone respond to the quisling Steve H. Just let him be, a true establishment representative, more at home now than ever in Murdochs Labour.

  16. From the geography of Laura’s seat it appears the Brexit factor played
    a major part. There were – possibly – other factors too – but there always are ,,

    That the Brexit “2nd vote” factor was going to play a huge part in the GE was
    obvious from the local Elections in May but Starmer would plough on Of
    course there was a .genuine concern that Johnson and the ERG would
    crash out with no deal – but the plan was expressed in such complicated
    terms people just turned off . There was no need for this he could have said
    \simply “A second vote is a last resort – to stop a no deal Brexit but we are
    doing our utmost to prevent this.” However that was evidently beyond the wit
    of whoever decided complicated timetable was best,

    Amid the increasing mayhem in Parliament – Johnson presented himself as
    “friend of the people” for of course he had nothing to do with Parliament
    and the anger and chaos therein.

    Who could blame the voters for wanting some peace and quiet with their
    “)ven ready” Brexit.

  17. Is a good piece in the Sept/Oct New Left Review by Mike Wayne ‘Roadmaps After Corbyn’ which should be read by all Lefties.
    Echoes my feelings, and I would argue for the need for a New Left Wing Democratic Socialist Party to transform society.
    Meanwhile politics seems dull.
    With such a party we may get the passion and vision back we had in the brief dream we had under Corbyn before it was crushed by Right Wing Labour aided and abetted by the Right Wing and Liberal media.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: