Expulsions

[curiousliberal]

According to the Telegraph, Kelvin Hopkins' hearing has been delayed three times. The scheduled one in April obviously hasn't happened.

If a GE occurs and he's still suspended, but not expelled, would his local party be expected to support his candidacy?

[Deleted]

As happened with Simon Danczuk

[curiousliberal]

Without bringing any libel into this, does anyone in the red room have an inkling as to why this might have been delayed repeatedly? Critics are saying this is a double standard in favour of Corbynite Hopkins, but he's on record as wanting to clear his name, and I can't see how it benefits him given the risk of a snap election.

[The Bishop]

The likes of John Woodcock and Ivan Lewis were also suspended for a while before deciding to jump ship of their own accord, so I don't think the "bias" thing holds up at all - its more of a comment on the party's logjammed disciplinary procedures if anything.

[neilm]

Has Alistair Campbell actually been expelled? That's a pretty rapid expulsion given how slowly these things take place in the Labour Party.

[Davıd Boothroyd]

May 29, 2019 18:11:13 GMT neilm said:

Has Alistair Campbell actually been expelled? That's a pretty rapid expulsion given how slowly these things take place in the Labour Party.

Well, to use the language actually used in the Labour Party Rule Book, he has been excluded from membership. This is supposed to be an automatic process for anyone who clearly opposes the Labour Party, but normally it rests on standing as a candidate against Labour, or signing nomination papers, or going out campaigning and that sort of thing.

Being expelled can only happen after an NCC hearing.

[J.G.Harston]

May 29, 2019 18:26:24 GMT Davıd Boothroyd said:

May 29, 2019 18:11:13 GMT neilm said:

Has Alistair Campbell actually been expelled? That's a pretty rapid expulsion given how slowly these things take place in the Labour Party.

Well, to use the language actually used in the Labour Party Rule Book, he has been excluded from membership. This is supposed to be an automatic process for anyone who clearly opposes the Labour Party, but normally it rests on standing as a candidate against Labour, or signing nomination papers, or going out campaigning and that sort of thing.

Being expelled can only happen after an NCC hearing.

Chatting before town council meeting this evening:

Them: I'm waiting to be expelled for voting for you.

Me: I'm waiting to be expelled for voting for Brexit.

[Adam in Stroud]

May 29, 2019 22:43:01 GMT J.G.Harston said:

May 29, 2019 18:26:24 GMT Davıd Boothroyd said:

Well, to use the language actually used in the Labour Party Rule Book, he has been excluded from membership. This is supposed to be an automatic process for anyone who clearly opposes the Labour Party, but normally it rests on standing as a candidate against Labour, or signing nomination papers, or going out campaigning and that sort of thing.

Being expelled can only happen after an NCC hearing.

Chatting before town council meeting this evening:

Them: I'm waiting to be expelled for voting for you.

Me: I'm waiting to be expelled for voting for Brexit.

Heretic! Burn him! Burn him!

[Vibe]

I still don't get why no action is taken against Tomy Blair, who went further than Campbell and told to vote for one of the Remain parties.

[polaris]

May 29, 2019 4:08:13 GMT curiousliberal said:

Without bringing any libel into this, does anyone in the red room have an inkling as to why this might have been delayed repeatedly? Critics are saying this is a double standard in favour of Corbynite Hopkins, but he's on record as wanting to clear his name, and I can't see how it benefits him given the risk of a snap election.

I'm not a member of the red room and I don't know the details of this particular case, but I doubt that the heel-dragging is a favour to Hopkins. It can't be much fun having this hanging over him and I'm sure he would want the matter to be resolved as soon as possible.

Labour's approach to complaints and disciplinary matters in general is utterly dysfunctional. I would suggest a number of reasons for this:

- The workload has increased massively as a direct result of the equally massive increase in membership since 2015.

- The party has got rid of many experienced and dedicated staffers because their faces didn't fit with the new regime. They appear to have been replaced in some cases by individuals selected on the basis of their ideological commitment to the Corbynite project, or family / social connections to the higher echelons of the Corbynista movement, rather than competence or qualifications.

- The party is so factionalised that it is very difficult for anyone to be seen as an impartial investigator.

- There is a toxic, aggressive-defensive culture, a major part of which is a 'siege mentality' where any complaints, concerns or allegations are seen as part of a sinister conspiracy, and the tribe instinctively rallies round any member who is seen to be under attack.

All of this means that serious concerns are ignored, lost in the system, brushed under the carpet, etc. This is most evident in the handling of anti-Semitism cases.

[Merseymike]

May 30, 2019 10:45:27 GMT polaris said:

May 29, 2019 4:08:13 GMT curiousliberal said:

Without bringing any libel into this, does anyone in the red room have an inkling as to why this might have been delayed repeatedly? Critics are saying this is a double standard in favour of Corbynite Hopkins, but he's on record as wanting to clear his name, and I can't see how it benefits him given the risk of a snap election.

I'm not a member of the red room and I don't know the details of this particular case, but I doubt that the heel-dragging is a favour to Hopkins. It can't be much fun having this hanging over him and I'm sure he would want the matter to be resolved as soon as possible.

Labour's approach to complaints and disciplinary matters in general is utterly dysfunctional. I would suggest a number of reasons for this:

- The workload has increased massively as a direct result of the equally massive increase in membership since 2015.

- The party has got rid of many experienced and dedicated staffers because their faces didn't fit with the new regime. They appear to have been replaced in some cases by individuals selected on the basis of their ideological commitment to the Corbynite project, or family / social connections to the higher echelons of the Corbynista movement, rather than competence or qualifications.

- The party is so factionalised that it is very difficult for anyone to be seen as an impartial investigator.

- There is a toxic, aggressive-defensive culture, a major part of which is a 'siege mentality' where any complaints, concerns or allegations are seen as part of a sinister conspiracy, and the tribe instinctively rallies round any member who is seen to be under attack.

All of this means that serious concerns are ignored, lost in the system, brushed under the carpet, etc. This is most evident in the handling of anti-Semitism cases.

The original staffers caused much of the original problem, though - they deliberately created the initial backlog.

There needs to be a clearer way of dealing with essentially political complaints made by those with an axe to grind. It wastes time. Hodge is the obvious example with her 200+ examples including few people actually identifiable in party membership. There was evidence that a former NEC member, thankfully defeated, was tasked with going through Facebook etc to identify people to suspend. A friend of mine, who is Jewish and backed Berger in the metro mayor selection, was expelled for liking a Green party post! She was reinstated of course, but it shows how silly the whole thing got.

If people want the serious cases to be dealt with stuffing up the system with clearly vexatious cases is might be way to do it. Which makes me question as to whether the agenda of some is what they claim it to be.

[Strontium Dog]

May 29, 2019 22:43:01 GMT J.G.Harston said:

May 29, 2019 18:26:24 GMT Davıd Boothroyd said:

Well, to use the language actually used in the Labour Party Rule Book, he has been excluded from membership. This is supposed to be an automatic process for anyone who clearly opposes the Labour Party, but normally it rests on standing as a candidate against Labour, or signing nomination papers, or going out campaigning and that sort of thing.

Being expelled can only happen after an NCC hearing.

Chatting before town council meeting this evening:

Them: I'm waiting to be expelled for voting for you.

Me: I'm waiting to be expelled for voting for Brexit.

In what circumstances do you have to worry about being expelled?

The Remain majority in the party may be confused about how you enhance people's freedoms by stripping them away, but that has yet to translate into threats against pro-Brexiters.

[polaris]

May 30, 2019 11:06:12 GMT Merseymike said:

May 30, 2019 10:45:27 GMT polaris said:

I'm not a member of the red room and I don't know the details of this particular case, but I doubt that the heel-dragging is a favour to Hopkins. It can't be much fun having this hanging over him and I'm sure he would want the matter to be resolved as soon as possible.

Labour's approach to complaints and disciplinary matters in general is utterly dysfunctional. I would suggest a number of reasons for this:

- The workload has increased massively as a direct result of the equally massive increase in membership since 2015.

- The party has got rid of many experienced and dedicated staffers because their faces didn't fit with the new regime. They appear to have been replaced in some cases by individuals selected on the basis of their ideological commitment to the Corbynite project, or family / social connections to the higher echelons of the Corbynista movement, rather than competence or qualifications.

- The party is so factionalised that it is very difficult for anyone to be seen as an impartial investigator.

- There is a toxic, aggressive-defensive culture, a major part of which is a 'siege mentality' where any complaints, concerns or allegations are seen as part of a sinister conspiracy, and the tribe instinctively rallies round any member who is seen to be under attack.

All of this means that serious concerns are ignored, lost in the system, brushed under the carpet, etc. This is most evident in the handling of anti-Semitism cases.

The original staffers caused much of the original problem, though - they deliberately created the initial backlog.

There needs to be a clearer way of dealing with essentially political complaints made by those with an axe to grind. It wastes time. Hodge is the obvious example with her 200+ examples including few people actually identifiable in party membership. There was evidence that a former NEC member, thankfully defeated, was tasked with going through Facebook etc to identify people to suspend. A friend of mine, who is Jewish and backed Berger in the metro mayor selection, was expelled for liking a Green party post! She was reinstated of course, but it shows how silly the whole thing got.

If people want the serious cases to be dealt with stuffing up the system with clearly vexatious cases is might be way to do it. Which makes me question as to whether the agenda of some is what they claim it to be.

This response is actually an example of the aggressive-defensive culture and bunker mentality that I was describing.

It's like when the sexual harassment allegations were made against Hopkins, or the sexual assault allegations made by Bex Bailey (ex-NEC member) against an unnamed official. Both of the young women who made the complaints were subject of a wave of hostile tweets from Corbyn supporters, who at best questioned their motives, and at worst were downright abusive.

[Merseymike]

May 30, 2019 12:38:06 GMT polaris said:

May 30, 2019 11:06:12 GMT Merseymike said:

The original staffers caused much of the original problem, though - they deliberately created the initial backlog.

There needs to be a clearer way of dealing with essentially political complaints made by those with an axe to grind. It wastes time. Hodge is the obvious example with her 200+ examples including few people actually identifiable in party membership. There was evidence that a former NEC member, thankfully defeated, was tasked with going through Facebook etc to identify people to suspend. A friend of mine, who is Jewish and backed Berger in the metro mayor selection, was expelled for liking a Green party post! She was reinstated of course, but it shows how silly the whole thing got.

If people want the serious cases to be dealt with stuffing up the system with clearly vexatious cases is might be way to do it. Which makes me question as to whether the agenda of some is what they claim it to be.

This response is actually an example of the aggressive-defensive culture and bunker mentality that I was describing.

It's like when the sexual harassment allegations were made against Hopkins, or the sexual assault allegations made by Bex Bailey (ex-NEC member) against an unnamed official. Both of the young women who made the complaints were subject of a wave of hostile tweets from Corbyn supporters, who at best questioned their motives, and at worst were downright abusive.

No it isn't, it's just that I don't support your very biased analysis favouring the right of the party, or assume that right wingers cannot and do not lie to support their own agenda. Which, like yours, is hostile to the left, and so will naturally be treated with suspicion, given the known agenda.

[J.G.Harston]

May 30, 2019 11:08:33 GMT Strontium Dog said:

May 29, 2019 22:43:01 GMT J.G.Harston said:

Chatting before town council meeting this evening:

Them: I'm waiting to be expelled for voting for you.

Me: I'm waiting to be expelled for voting for Brexit.

In what circumstances do you have to worry about being expelled?

It was said in jest, by both sides.

[andrew111]

May 29, 2019 18:26:24 GMT Davıd Boothroyd said:

May 29, 2019 18:11:13 GMT neilm said:

Has Alistair Campbell actually been expelled? That's a pretty rapid expulsion given how slowly these things take place in the Labour Party.

Well, to use the language actually used in the Labour Party Rule Book, he has been excluded from membership. This is supposed to be an automatic process for anyone who clearly opposes the Labour Party, but normally it rests on standing as a candidate against Labour, or signing nomination papers, or going out campaigning and that sort of thing.

Being expelled can only happen after an NCC hearing.

I think this is really a spectacular own goal by Labour.. Sometimes "applying the rules" is not smart.

Basically saying to more than half your voters in 2017 (and a considerable number of your members) "S*d off, we don't want you anymore"

[carlton43]

Campbell back on the radio this morning to grandstand over his expulsion and to make wider points and to draw in other prominent members by name to his defence. I am now perfectly sure that this was a deliberate act on his part as very much 'the old Campbell' having a go at destabilizing the present leadership, possibly as part of a concerted effort to cause damage and thus to effect change that his faction have not been able to achieve by democratic means.

I stand by my assertion that grandstanding on mainstream TV and boasting of voting away was good cause for expulsion in itself. I now see it as part of a wider spoiler exercise planned to have a major damaging effect on the leadership for which expulsion is a necessity. He deserves it and was playing for it to a purpose.

[Khunanup]

May 31, 2019 7:16:57 GMT carlton43 said:

Campbell back on the radio this morning to grandstand over his expulsion and to make wider points and to draw in other prominent members by name to his defence. I am now perfectly sure that this was a deliberate act on his part as very much 'the old Campbell' having a go at destabilizing the present leadership, possibly as part of a concerted effort to cause damage and thus to effect change that his faction have not been able to achieve by democratic means.

I stand by my assertion that grandstanding on mainstream TV and boasting of voting away was good cause for expulsion in itself. I now see it as part of a wider spoiler exercise planned to have a major damaging effect on the leadership for which expulsion is a necessity. He deserves it and was playing for it to a purpose.

The whole thing here, and this just drips with irony, is that Campbell was just being unequivocally honest. Corbyn, and many who sell themselves on being different and straightforward politicians where what you see is what you get, like to make a virtue about their honesty and that they're clear with their views etc.

Now obviously Corbyn's mask has long slipped on that score but in the end Campbell was asked a straightforward question and gave an honest answer.

[carlton43]

May 31, 2019 8:12:44 GMT Khunanup said:

May 31, 2019 7:16:57 GMT carlton43 said:

Campbell back on the radio this morning to grandstand over his expulsion and to make wider points and to draw in other prominent members by name to his defence. I am now perfectly sure that this was a deliberate act on his part as very much 'the old Campbell' having a go at destabilizing the present leadership, possibly as part of a concerted effort to cause damage and thus to effect change that his faction have not been able to achieve by democratic means.

I stand by my assertion that grandstanding on mainstream TV and boasting of voting away was good cause for expulsion in itself. I now see it as part of a wider spoiler exercise planned to have a major damaging effect on the leadership for which expulsion is a necessity. He deserves it and was playing for it to a purpose.

The whole thing here, and this just drips with irony, is that Campbell was just being unequivocally honest. Corbyn, and many who sell themselves on being different and straightforward politicians where what you see is what you get, like to make a virtue about their honesty and that they're clear with their views etc.

Now obviously Corbyn's mask has long slipped on that score but in the end Campbell was asked a straightforward question and gave an honest answer.

Come!  Come!

Campbell hasn't got or ever had an 'honest' fibre in his whole being. He is and always was a duplicitous manipulative spin merchant. He never does anything except to induce an effect. He went on TV to cause a big ripple and got one. He is relishing every moment of this.

[Khunanup]

May 31, 2019 8:17:44 GMT carlton43 said:

May 31, 2019 8:12:44 GMT Khunanup said:

The whole thing here, and this just drips with irony, is that Campbell was just being unequivocally honest. Corbyn, and many who sell themselves on being different and straightforward politicians where what you see is what you get, like to make a virtue about their honesty and that they're clear with their views etc.

Now obviously Corbyn's mask has long slipped on that score but in the end Campbell was asked a straightforward question and gave an honest answer.

Come!  Come!

Campbell hasn't got or ever had an 'honest' fibre in his whole being. He is and always was a duplicitous manipulative spin merchant. He never does anything except to induce an effect. He went on TV to cause a big ripple and got one. He is relishing every moment of this.

Er, yes, that was kind of my point.