It was good to see you at the Enfield North CLP All Members Meeting last week.
Thank you very much for agreeing to provide a written submission to the Boundary Commission for England’s (BCE) consultation on the Parliamentary constituency boundary review.
Please see the documents attached.
I thought it would be useful to provide you with a briefing note on the written submission process, which includes:
general information on the BCE consultation;
how you can have your say on the initial proposals;
how the BCE’s initial proposals affect Enfield North, and the Borough of Enfield as a whole;
the Labour Party’s counter proposals for Enfield North, and the Borough of Enfield as a whole; and
some of the factors to bear in mind when making your submission.
Also attached is the BCE's report on their initial proposals and a map of what the Enfield North constituency would look like under the Labour Party’s plans.
Whilst it is important to support Labour’s counter proposals, you certainly do not have to discuss every aspect of their revisions, given that they are suggesting a number of changes to the wards in Enfield North. Please feel free to concentrate on a particular area or ward.
You may want to make the case for why Grange or Highlands ward for example (which are both part of the BCE’s initial proposals for Enfield North, but not in Labour’s plans) have more in common, in terms of socio-economic and environmental factors, with the Enfield Southgate constituency, or why a ward like Ponders End, with its strong historical links to Enfield North, should become part of our constituency again.
The deadline to provide your written submission is Monday 5th December 2016,butit would be great if you could submit your written submission to the BCE as early as possible. We need to ensure everything is submitted, and our case is made, in good time.
I would really appreciate it if, once it has been submitted, you could let me know and provide me with a copy too.
For further information on all of the above, you can take a look at the BCE’s consultation website here: https://www.bce2018.org.uk/
Since the last all members meeting took place on 13 October 2016 i have been approached by a number of Enfield North CLP members, all voicing their dissatisfaction at the way the vote for London Regional conference delegates and Regional Board nominees was conducted, asking me to make this clear to the EC and to put forward their ideas for ensuring that it doesn't happen again. I would like this raised at the next EC meeting.
The point raised with me by these comrades all boil down to what they see as the following issues:
Firstly, some members did not receive notification and were thus unaware of the 13 October 2016 meeting. I'm sure that everyone would agree that this is highly unsatisfactory and must not be allowed to happen again.
However, in relation to the meeting itself there is a great deal of dissatisfaction with the way that the election of conference delegates and Regional Board nominees was conducted.
The ballot papers did not seem to be in any particular order, and some were blank bits of paper. The reason given for this was that it was because the printer had broken down before all the ballot papers could be printed off. This in and of itself would be enough to undermine confidence in the ballot procedure. In such circumstances, calling off the ballot until a later date should have been considered and put to the members present at the meeting to decide.
In my view the ballot should have been postponed to a later date, when a full set of printed ballot forms were available. A decision about this should have been made by a show of hands of all those present. Unfortunately it wasn't. In hindsight i think that this contributed to a feeling of unfairness on the part of many present at the meeting. It did nothing to allay any feelings of mistrust that may exist following the recent leadership election.
The ballot papers were not individually numbered, making it impossible to say with certainty that the ballot forms sent out were the same ones that were received back. This alone can seriously undermine confidence in the integrity of the results and contribute to an atmosphere of mistrust in the CLP.
The way the votes were counted was also unsatisfactory and did nothing to instil confidence that things were being done in a fair and impartial way. The counting exercise itself did not take place in a part of the meeting room that was sufficiently visible to all of those present. In my opinion it should have been conducted on the stage area, albeit at a table that is separated from the Chair and CLP Secretary.
Before and during the hustings, and before the ballot papers were collected by the tellers, printed slips of paper were being distributed containing a slate or list of the preferred candidates of certain of the EC members. It is not clear that this practise is within the Labour Party rules.
During the count all communication between the head teller and the Chair should have been in the open and in public. It was clear that there were several private conversations between them before, during and after a series of recounts, and before the results were announced. The members were thus not kept fully informed during the counting. This contributed to a feeling of there being a lack of transparency in the way the ballot was being conducted.
When the count was finally concluded Doug Taylor, Enfield Council Labour Group leader announced that the votes for two of the Regional Conference delegates were mixed up with those for the womens' delegates. Then, when a challenge to the validity of the election process itself was made from the floor by a CLP member, along with a proposal to abandon the ballot and re-run it online, the Chair continued without any attempt at first of all canvassing the views of all those present.
This also raises the question why the casting of votes for conference delegates was separated out on a gender basis at all. As far as i understand there was merely a requirement that two out of the CLP's three delegates must be women. There was no requirement that one of the delegates had to be a man rather than a woman. We could have elected three women delegates if we had wanted to. This choice was not given to the CLP members due to the way that the ballot papers were drawn up.
I hope never to see such poorly managed CLP elections again. It is vital that all business conducted in Enfield North CLP is carried out in a transparent, fair and inclusive way. Unfortunately the last meeting left an unsavoury perception of unfairness which must never be repeated.
It would therefore assist in maintaining the confidence of CLP members in the fairness and integrity of the conduct of voting at future meetings that the following measures are introduced:
A count/tally made of all those present at the meeting.
Numbered ballot forms distributed to each person, to ensure that they match the numbers of people present in the room.
Election of tellers by show of hands
Counting of votes to be done at a table on the stage/platform, in front of and in full view of everybody, and with all tellers present.
Making it clear that meeting will remain open until the votes are counted and announced.
In addition, although i'm sure that meeting notices are sent out to the members correctly and this should in no way be seen as a criticism of you personally, i think that in order to ensure maximum member participation at future meetings, confirmation of receipt of meetings notifications should requested in the outgoing email. Members should be requested to reply. Then any that don't respond can be contacted again. This would greatly reduce incidents of members not being kept fully informed of events and would help maintain a healthy atmosphere within the CLP, free of any feelings of suspicion or mistrust.
I would be grateful if you could both confirm receipt of this email communication, and that you will submit it to the EC for discussion.
Just reflecting on the past week as a Labour Party member.
The media as we know do not want to report anything positive about anyone supporting Jeremy Corbyn.
The disloyal PLP are given daily access to national media which hardly ever puts them under serious scrutiny.
The events surrounding the Labour Party National Executive Committee (NEC) beggared belief. The erosion of democracy by the instigation of a secret ballot was an indicator of what was to come. I am clear that if you are elected to a position then how you vote on issues needs to be transparent for members. After all we can see how MPs voted on the war in Iraq, or bombing Syria.
But the secret ballot was just the beginning, the attack on democracy within the Labour Party took an even more sinister turn when over 150 thousand new members lost their right to vote. But is got worse, confusion as to how you could still vote began to emerge. The confusion was clear to see from posts on social media. Increasingly requests for clarity were being sought and even now it is not clear. "Job well done" for those who are responsible for this attack on democracy. For a party that should be fighting inequality it was with great shame I read they were going to offer a last minute deal of £25 to vote in the leadership election.
Better people than me , FBU leader Matt Wrack for instance have condemned this decision which will exclude the low paid, disabled, students and pensioners.
Why are they doing this? Lots of reasons, the first is to dishearten new members into leaving the Labour Party. Their actions feed into the negative perceptions the public have of politicians. This is very very dangerous for democracy. Be clear their policy is to shrink the membership. Their coup demonstrated their contempt for the membership.
The Trade Unions have been told to get into line with the decision to close the door on getting a vote via joining a union. This is after Unite tried to secure a opportunity for their members to vote.
But the attacks on democracy didnt stop.
Their next move was to issue a diktat to in effect close down the Labour Party until after the Leadership elections.
For those new members to the Labour Party, please note, this decision is without precedent. It is an outrageous attempt to prevent Labour Party members to carry out legitimate business in their communities. There are some caveats which allow meetings to be convened. But be very clear this act, in my opinion as a member is bullying and intimidating.
But, it still isn't over there is more.
Rumours are circulating (I would be happy to hear I've they are not true) that there are members of the Labour Party trawling through social media looking for evidence to deny a member from voting. If this is true, who are they and who appointed them? What procedure are they following? How can it be challenged? I have seen elected members leaving unpleasant comments on social media, have they been prevented from voting?
Brighton & Hove Labour Party, apparently the biggest in the country. They have been suspended and they will not be allowed to nominate any of the candidates for the leadership elections. Their crime? They democratically elected a new executive to run the branch. Democracy apparently is not a good thing, the new executive members voted in have been turfed out and those voted out have been brought back in. What for is not clear since the branch is closed down. I think you can all guess which of the leadership candidates the majority of this branch support.
I maybe wrong but the public reasons given for in effect closing down grassroots Labour Party branches is that there is a serious risk to safety of members.
Let's get this out of the way. No abusive bullying intimidating behaviour should be tolerated in the Labour Party. Each case should be investigated thoroughly and transparently.
So back to the blanket ban, as I write these words I still find it difficult that this has happened.
The ban has been fuelled by actions attributed to Jeremy Corbyn supporters even if there is no evidence of these claims. As I have said the press are not subjecting any anti Jeremy stories to any scrutiny. To the effect that it must appear to the public there are mass brawls in Labour Party meetings across the country.
We know this is not the case , what we know if that Labour Party meetings are being held and publicity support for Jeremy and condemning the actions of the PLP.
There have been a couple of high profile acts of intimidation that I believe have been used to close down the Labour Party.
The first is the brick through the window of Angela Eagles office. I may be wrong but this story broke at the same time as she launched her campaign.
Like many others I saw the window heard the word brick and just shook my head in anger. Who did this, why, what did they think they would achieve by this unacceptable behaviour.
The national media turned on Jeremy, even though there had been no evidence that it was carried out by person who supported Jeremy. Jeremy condemned the act as he had always done. But the damage was done, a link to Corbyn supporters had been established without any evidence.
The second big story was another Angela Eagle story that she had to cancel a meeting in a Luton due to threats to the Hotel.
Another big story were allegations of intimidation and homophobia at Angela Eagles constituency Labour Party meeting.
All three stories have subsequently been put under scrutiny, but not by national media.
1. There are reports that the hotel are saying they did not receive any threats which contradicts what was reported in the national media.
2. Angela Eagles CLP: It has now been reported that Angela was not at the meeting and that the allegations of abusive behaviour at the meeting were completely unfounded.
3. Brick through the window. This I think was the most quoted story and perhaps fuelled the confidence that a decision to close down the Labour Party would be understood. Yesterday I watched a video produced allegedly outside Angela Eagles office. What it reveals is deeply worrying http://youtu.be/ppnKHmuVA1s
I have never been to this office, if this video is not of the office in the building then the CLP needs to challenge this video. But if this video is true, then the public have been misled.
I thought a brick had been thrown through the office in a room where staff could have been working. But the broken window with the placard that has been all over national media is according to this video no where near the Labour Party office and the evidence looks like someone trying to gain access to the building. The video claims Police are no longer investigating this crime. I have not read any evidence that connected the broken window to the Labour Party.
I am sure many members watching this video will like me be shocked and concerned about this and other allegations which have been made and no doubt contributed to closing down our party.
Democracy within our party is a fundamental issue and gat is why I would like a statement from all potential leadership candidates
" Will you call on the NEC to rescind the decision to close down the Labour Party & the decision to disenfranchise new members from voting in the leadership elections from immediate effect."
HOLD THE BBC TO ACCOUNT FOR ITS SMEAR CAMPAIGN AGAINST JEREMY CORBYN
28,376 of 30,000 signatures
Campaign created by Maria Patrick
OFCOM is the independent regulator of the communications industry and is now responsible for holding the BBC to account should it fail to adhere to certain Broadcasting Codes.
The BBC needs to be held to account for the spiteful and manipulative coverage of Jeremy Corbyn following the EU referendum and during the leadership coup, which is grossly in breach of Section 5 of the Broadcasting Code - Section 5 covering "Due Impartiality and Due Accuracy and Undue Prominence of Views and Opinions", and Section 7 which covers fairness.
****PLEASE NOTE: THIS PETITION HAS BEEN AMENDED - ONLY TO REFLECT NEW INFORMATION RECEIVED REGARDING REGULATORY RESPONSIBILITY OF THE BBC.****
Why is this important?
The BBC's news coverage of Jeremy Corbyn has always been overtly biased against him and his leadership of the Labour Party, but following the EU referendum and the subsequent leadership challenge BBC news coverage of Jeremy has degenerated into journalism which is nothing short of bullying, smear, lies and distortion. This is in clear breach of rule 7.1 of the Broadcasting Code to "avoid unjust or unfair treatment of individuals or organisations in programmes"
Article 5.13 of the Broadcasting Codes states that 'Broadcasters should not give undue prominence to the views and opinions of particular persons or bodies on matters of political or industrial controversy and matters relating to current public policy..." Undue prominence being "a significant imbalance of views aired within coverage of matters of political or industrial controversy or matters relating to current public policy."
This code has not been adhered to and the BBC coverage, on both TV and radio, of Jeremy has been relentless, crass and of the lowest standard. There are now more and more incidences of the BBC misrepresenting the facts by cherry-picking and by omission, and it can't be allowed to continue.
The most shocking attacks on Jeremy, however, have arisen as a result of the challenge to his leadership. By giving it a significantly imbalanced proportion of airtime, the BBC is broadcasting a significant imbalance of viewpoints. By allowing former members of Jeremy's cabinet to resign LIVE on air BBC news reporting has become nothing more than car-crash journalism and should be saved for reality TV and gossip magazines.
In supporting the leadership challenge by giving it '"undue prominence of views and opinions" the BBC is effectively helping to undermine democratic process . By giving undue attention and airtime to this leadership challenge they are sending a message to the people - that 'democratic process' is there to be ignored when it suits the agenda of the establishment.
We pay £145.50 per year through our TV licences to fund the BBC. We DO NOT want our £145.50 to be paying for this kind of 'tabloid-esque' propaganda. The BBC is not acting in compliance with article 5 of the Broadcasting Code and should therefore be held to account.
PLEASE SIGN THIS PETITION SO I CAN FORWARD THEM A COMPLAINT ABOUT THE CONDUCT OF THE BBC THAT THEY CAN'T IGNORE.
I just signed the petition "James Harding, Director of News and Current Affairs: We ask that the BBC review the current political editor; Laura Kuenssberg's position" and wanted to see if you could help by adding your name.
Our goal is to reach 25,000 signatures and we need more support. You can read more and sign the petition here:
Please check detail and comment before 11am tomorrow to allow for reasonably prompt distribution to rest of group -
Attendees :
Mark French
Stephen Farnsworth
Ajith
Yetunde
Lilia
Iris
Kaz
John
Ed
(Can I have your surnames please)
Apologies
Muhammad, Liz, Ruth
Key dates for your diaries :
Next momentum meeting is 24 July 3pm in St Stephens Church hall Silver Street EN1 2BA
NEC voting commences 20th July for committee so L members should be receiving their papers soon
Next CRP meeting is 7th September, time and venue to follow
This Saturday there's an anti racism March and a local academy March ( I don't know the details )
Ed has completed time stuffing envelopes for labour and highly urges us all to volunteer and get involved in labour activities, make friends , learn what we can about all that we can
Mark is trying to get hold of 140 names of JC supporters from Robin Jackson for us to interact with and hopefully mobilise to join us
For future reference only we asked if anyone had any local / other press contacts ?
The group overall believe we should work diligently but relatively quietly to keep infiltrators / unwanted attention at bay , however the group want to encourage others to join and get involved so we are aware a certain amount of profile is required but we agree we need to stay political and never personal in our communications. We also recognised that we may be infiltrated so would encourage each other to stay professional and in JC message
Ajith recommended we get a stall at Enfield town market , the group over all felt this could be a good idea and further investigation was needed within group as to what we hope to achieve , literature to hand out etc ( Maria McCaul to get rough costs for stand , printing etc )
There are 12 positions on CLP Up for election ( see what'sapp for link) we urge each other to think about going up for election for this and for all places in party
There are 850 known Labour Party members in Nr Enfield and people in the group may have contact details for some of these ( Mark & Iris). For future discussion, what to do with these
The group discussed LP wards and how to activate them in future
Joan R was discussed with regards to us being aware of how she was elected ( a done deal ) her position on policies and how angry we are with her disrespect for the membership who voted her in . We discussed her support from the Kurdish Business world in Enfield and the negativity from her camp for local Turkish business and we agreed that we can better influence what we want from her ( stay or go ??) once we get established in our group, grow our numbers , get our people on CLP . We are aware and need to be cautious with her as her supporters guard her zealously ( we used word thugs )
We again reminded each other to keep our language on all occasions professional , political and positive to JC , ignore negativity on social media as it'll take us off message and could give ammunition to trolls and press to critics us
We need to support the 40 , link sent via whatsapp with positive messages and improve their profile via their social media
We talked about Tom Watson and how only way to get him out was for his position to Be challenged , more needed in this
We discussed having a momentum / JC supporters picnic to allow local informal discussions (Steve Farnsworth and I are involved in subject of using local green space for local activities so can help with location if necessary)
Objectives-
Increase our reach , getting hold of the 140 and mobilising them
Meeting again in two weeks ideally with an increased group
