After it was discovered at the St Ann's Labour Party selection candidate selection meeting that there were people present and voting who should not have been, I came home from the pub (where I'd heard about it) and wrote this article. It has subsequently been edited by site admins to remove the names of people who were embarrassed or in the final case where a journalist said it was potentially libellous. Well here I will attempt to summarise what we have subsequently found out and hopefully take people's attention away from my original appalling rant.
*An individual has asked that their name be replaced with their function in this post on the grounds that they are not seeking public office. This has been done.
Tags for Forum Posts: election2014, labour, st ann's labour, stanns
How can we win from this? You're suggesting we attempt to extract as many 'promises' out of Labour by sitting on the fence? We'd still have to vote for them, wouldn't we? And it would hardly offer much in the way of counter promises from the Lib Dems considering they have little hope of gaining control of the council.
Hi Emine,
Please come to Lothair Road South after 6pm when the vast majority of residents are back from work.
Emina, whilst you say that it is important for you to talk to local residents, I am less clear whether the party you represent is prepared to listen. The mass of evidence on this posting seems to clearly indicate to me that the selection process was decidedly dodgy to say the least. That an investigation did not apparently highlight these irregularities, and that the NEC advised to let the selection stand, seems to me to give a clear message that the Labour party both at local and national level is prepared to condone such skulduggery. Why should I or anyone else in Haringey trust the Labour party to run the council if they operate in such a cavalier manner in their own organisation?
Hi Emina
I live Harringay ward and do usually vote Labour, but I have to say this is fairly grim stuff. The allegations being made here most certainly DO concern me. If I vote for you, I am effectively voting to keep a Labour group in power. The same group appear to be (to put it kindly) turning a blind eye to fraud and abuse of a democratic process. This seems to me to be a fundamental problem.
Unfortunately, because the Labour Party have clearly disregarded their own rule book, (see #2 in John's posting of the NEC report), the guilt extends to the Labour Party of any ward, the party whom you stand for.
Gia Adamou? Who she?
My 'n' key is playing up. I think you called this person 'Gina', no?
This is the NEC report. It is obviously private and confidential. You may draw your own conclusions:
On the 25th September, the Compliance Unit were referred a complaint regarding the selection for Local Government candidates in St Ann’s ward, Haringey.
The complaint raised two areas that potentially warranted investigation:
1. Whether the selection was run properly with all voting members eligible to vote.
2. Whether there are members registered in the ward at business addresses who in fact live elsewhere.
The timetable for the selection was agreed on 30th April 2013, and thus the freeze date was set at this date meaning only members with at least sixmonths of membership at this date could take part in the selection. The shortlisting for the ward was held on 4th September, and the selection meeting in question was on 15th September.
There was an independent LCF observer at the selection, Steve Hart. Mr Hart is an experienced member and has taken part in many selection processes. On receiving the complaint, the Regional Office interviewed Mr Hart in the firstinstance. In order to confirm the facts, they also interviewed the branch secretary, John Blake, who was present at the meeting and party to the complaint.
Both interviewees confirmed that, at the meeting on 15th September, every member was registered and matched to the membership list withthe freeze date of the 30th April. All voting members were on the freeze date list. The regional office obtained the attendance list of the meeting to corroborate this evidence.
Both interviewees confirmed that the meeting was run according to the model agenda. An opportunity was given for members to challenge the eligibility of anyone taking part. No members were challenged, which is not disputed by the complainant. In subsequent correspondence, the complainant suggests that a member taking part in another selection in the same building raised a concern about ineligible members joining the meeting. This was verified with Steve Hart, who confirmed that this is correct: the member approached him to say that somepeople may try to enter the building without passes. He confirms that no ineligible members were present.
Based on these investigations, the Compliance Unit ruled that the selection was properly and fairly run.
The complainant states that after the selection, which she lost, she investigated the membership of a number of members present at the meeting. She found that they were registered at business addresses in the ward, rather than home addresses. This will be subject to investigation by the Regional Office, who will ensure that all members in the ward are resident there.
The complainant argues that her investigation invalidates the selection process. However, they were members on the freeze date for the ward at the time of the selection, and their membership was not challenged either during the meeting or in the weeks prior to the meeting. There was ample opportunity to investigate the members prior to the meeting. Members (including those complained of) were canvassed by the candidates and no issues were raised.
The Compliance Unit therefore found that:
1. The selection should not be overturned, as it was run properly and fairly.
2. The Regional Office should ensure that local members are properly registered at their home address rather than business address for Labour Party membership, but this does not invalidate the selection.
© 2024 Created by Hugh. Powered by
© Copyright Harringay Online Created by Hugh