Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
Voter fraud discovered in St Ann's, technicalities mean the result stands.
After the recent St Ann's ward Labour party selection meeting we lost our three standing councillors. Nilgun Canver stood down, and Zena Brabazon and David Browne were deselected. In 2009 this was the site of the rather startling deselection of the illustrious Brian Haley. Considering the quorum at the Harringay Labour party meeting to select three candidates in 2010, St Ann's have an active and diligent Labour Party.
Or do they?
The three candidates selected this year in St Ann's were Barbara Blake, Peter Morton (Head of Press at the Labour Party), and a local shopkeeper.
It was remarkable in 2009 when Brian Haley was deselected but what happened here was unprecedented. All three councillors in a safe Labour ward were replaced. It now transpires that the election to select these candidates was not as straight as it should have been. Nineteen people who were both outside the ward and had joined the Labour party after the cut-off date at the end of April had joined on one day in July. Just imagine if St Ann's councillors had to be mindful of Harringay traffic concerns to be selected? Would those bollards exist? Why was this allowed to happen?
The meeting was stacked with Haringey Labour members, not necessarily from St Ann's (26 in total) but loyal to Councillor Kober and perhaps other factions. Five people from outside of the ward voted in the election, this is all it took to swing it and come May next year your vote will be nearly worthless because this is a very safe Labour ward.
There are two things that bother me about this. The obvious and wilfully ignored corruption in the candidate selection - these people WILL be elected, just because they are the Labour candidates - these meetings are important, and the apparent barring from standing of a local Labour activist, Seema Chandwani.
To be allowed to stand in a selection meeting in Haringey you must go before a panel to be judged on your suitability as a candidate. In Haringey the panel was chaired by Luke Akehurst. Apparently he thought that Ms Chandwani would bring the Labour Party into disrepute, presumably because she embarrassed them over youth services in the borough (and I bet he was one of the people clapping loudly when Ed Milliband talked about lowering the voting age this week). Luke denied us the opportunity to vote for Seema as a councillor. As a keen follower of local politics I think this was quite nasty, I would have dropped leaflets and knocked on doors for Seema, and I'm not even a member. I wonder what he made of Charles Adje whom I see he allowed to stand for selection?
The second thing that bothers me is that rules in place to protect us from vested interests taking over our representation as residents were completely ignored in this selection process. As I've said, just imagine if a bunch of angry Harringay citizens could join the Labour party and go over and deselect anyone in St Ann's who supported the gating of the Gardens? I have looked into this myself and I know it's completely against the rules. Labour central office were alerted to this but were too busy planning their conference this week to care about it. The GRA are in shock.
Labour in Haringey do not deserve our votes because they are careless with the selection process.
Next week, on Monday the 30th, the selection meetings come to Harringay and I urge all Labour Party members to attend the meeting and vote for the best candidates, not to mention keep an eye on the voting. As much criticism as I level at the local Labour Party, at the end of the day it is up to members to take an active part in the selection process.
(Edited by site admin following legal advice)
Tags for Forum Posts: election2014, labour
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Alan Stanton on
-
Or, in some cases, Pam, the undemocratic process kicks in. Where a group with apparently equal say among its members is manipulated from behind the scenes by different and not obvious interests. This is not always as crude as vote-rigging or packing out a meeting. Or as you mention, the destructive and controlling games often played in student politics which some people confuse later with real life. But as you observed earlier in this thread, it's also about people knowing one another. Social networks, friendships, loyalties are usually more positive.
This discussion got me thinking back to Women's Movement debates in the 1970s. Especially Jo Freeman's pamphlet: The Tyranny of Structurelessness. And also about the recent report by Helena Morrissey into allegations that the LibDem Party failed to act on allegations of sexual harassment. The opening paragraphs of Section 2 of her report - "The intrinsic nature of party politics" - are worth reading by anyone who wants to understand how "loyal and unswerving commitment" within parties can lead to individuals abusing power.
Michael Anderson is right in his comment above. If people don't like the process, "do something about it". So there are things which people inside the Labour Party can and should do. The elected officers of the Tottenham Party are doing them. And have written to Party members telling us that a local investigation is underway. Party members themselves should insist on more information in due course.
As the May elections approach people outside the political parties can also do something. Perhaps our local artists will design and offer to sell us some great window posters. Or if you have a colour printer, make your own.
When election canvassers call your phone or arrive rosetted at your door, give them a few minutes. Instead of apologising that you urgently need to water your dandelions, ask for their first names. Speaking in a gentle, kindly voice, ask what they personally think about issues within their own parties; such as vote-rigging; allegations of sexual harassment; and the general rightward drift. And if they are too busy with their clip-board and have nothing to say, tell them that you'd like to meet the candidate - or at least a proper human - before deciding how to cast your vote.
-
Permalink Reply by BBL on
-
I've lived in Haringey for 25 years, election canvassers have never called to my door or phoned.
I can't believe that next year will be any different.
-
Permalink Reply by John D on
-
As an outsider, in my view this is a triumph for the democratic process. Something went wrong, ordinary members of the public spotted it, raised concerns, publicised it and demanded rectification. Which is, apparently, now being done. And I assume that measures will be put in place to stop this happening again.
Well done vox populi ( HOL and John McM
)
-
-
John, it will be "a triumph for the democratic process" if and when the Labour Party's London Region acts.
Many people have heard of "Parkinson's Law" by the management writer C. Northcote Parkinson. In fact he suggested several "Laws". The third was "The Law of Delay" which said: "If there is a way to delay an important decision the good bureaucracy, public or private, will find it."
As far as I know the investigations are being carried out internally by the Tottenham Labour Party. Which has no power to re-run the selection. I've heard nothing about the Regional office even starting its investigation.
(Tottenham Hale ward councillor. Zena Brabazon one of the councillors deselected in St Ann's ward is my partner.)
-
Permalink Reply by John McMullan on
-
Stephen from the Tottenham Journal started following me on Twitter after I wrote this so I know he knows about it. He seems to prefer to print articles that show Haringey Labour in a more flattering light. Also very flattering pictures of Claire Kober (who along with David Lammy "blogs" for the Journal). Nice to see the relationship between local government and local news is close...
-
-
Isn't it a bit unfair to criticise the Journal for running the Council Tax freeze as a news item? They could hardly ignore it.
Credit also to the Journal for carrying Seema Chandwani's occasional blog. It's always lively and interesting - even if I often disagree with some of what she writes. Unlike Dear Leader Kober, Seema welcomes principled argument with people who disagree with her.
What's really curious though, is how the local freesheets seem to have entirely ignored the story in this thread. Never mind. I'm sure it's bound to emerge in the nationals at some point. Preferably as Labour successfully cleaning up its act.
-
-
Maybe but as I said he followed me last Thursday and still nothing. He says he's busy but I think this is important, hence my bothering with it. 3680 views now, what's the circulation of the Journal?
-
-
“Delay is the deadliest form of denial.” A bit more C. Northcote Parkinson.
Parkinson is an underrated management writer. This may be partly because he wrote in a gentle humorous style - accentuated by cartoons from Osbert Lancaster illustrating his books. But he was both mocking and very perceptive. The people described - even in his spoof mathematical formulae - highlighted attitudes which we still encounter.
For example, in one equation the value "p" stands for "prohibitive procrastinator" whose implicit view of change is that "this cannot be done in your lifetime".
-
-
I have asked Alan Olive on Twitter, to confirm that he is the person responsible for a St Ann's rerun decision. I don't want to make threats but there is a lot more going on here than people realise which I'm prepared to sit on until the election and put to candidates at a hustings, at the moment.
I do wish the candiates who WERE elected in St Ann's would also join the calls for a rerun, especially Peter Morton, who is Head of Press for the Labour Party Nationally. Where is Nora saying that she is uphappy with the cheating and saying it't not fair? I'm not talking about stocking the room with your legitimate supporters, I'm talking about the five people who attended but live nowhere near Haringey, let alone the St Ann's ward. Perhaps we have misjudged Ms Mulready (who voted at this meeting) but I thought she was the kind of person who did not put up with this kind of thing.
Apparently this should have been challenged at the time but that line is being spun, of course, by people who are broadly happy with the result, i.e. no Zena but Peter and Barbara, they don't care about the guy who stacked the meeting and they don't care about their electorate either.
-
-
The records for this selection meeting are held by John Blake. He and Steve Hart ran the meeting. He is refusing to hand them over to anyone for inspection and given the furore I can only presume this is to cover up some wrong doing or incompetence. It has been pointed out to me that he could just be being bloody minded though.
-
Permalink Reply by Julie on
-
John Blake has now submitted the attendance records to one Alan Olive at Labour HQ but did not accede to requests from Tottenham chair, Stuart McNamara and secretary, Seema Chandwani, though all other wards did upon request.
The argument allegedly now being deployed is that those of us in the meeting who were bona fide members of the ward should have complained at the time and by not doing so we have invalidated all our rights to object subsequently.
Apparently there should have been a point in the meeting at which John Blake, who chaired the proceedings, was required to ask us all whether we were happy with everybody else in the room being legitimately present. He didn't do this, as far as I recall. And had he done so, I would have said it was nonsense to expect any of us to object to anyone else being present, without facts about addresses. And I accept that we have no defence against brand new people coming to party meetings like this, out of the blue. They all may have believed it was OK for them to be there and that they had a right as well as a duty to support the person or persons who encouraged their attendance. However they had no proper right to be there. And some people in the room may have known that.
Generally the Labour party operates without organised infiltration so this isn't normally an issue. If an investigation establishes dishonesty and infiltration has happened, there is a clear duty to run the process again making sure that only legitimate ward members take part.
-
Permalink Reply by John Taylor on
-
Julie you are wrong in your recollection. John Blake, as ward secretary, clearly asked those present if they had any reason to challenge the legitimacy of those present at the correct point in the meeting.
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
