Hacking Labour

The story about the Progress faction’s attempts to obtain personal data from the Labour Party’s membership system has broken. The tag, #HackingLabour will find loads of stuff, including the Information Commissoner’s Office response, which it seems is to write a stern letter. Tim Turner looks at the Law, here, and I comment on his thread, repeating what I said in my post, Compliance, that the Chakrabarti inquiry stated that the Labour Party can’t run a legally safe disciplinary process; it lacks the legal skills and it is becoming clear it lacks the IT security and data protection skills which become mandatory under the EU’s new Data Protection regulation.

Hacking Labour

Trident

The House of Commons voted on Trident last night, Jeremy Corbyn while speaking against was interrupted by Labour MPs asking him why he didn’t support Labour’s (losing) Manifesto. They can’t have it both ways, either winning elections is everything and they can dump the elected Leader because they think he can’t or it isn’t and the demonstrable fact is that the manifesto failed to win. Why not change the policy rather than the Leader?

They also have a very selective memory as to what the manifesto/programme said.

The 2014 programme, on which the manifesto was based, stated that Labour would need “a clear body of evidence” to abandon its commitment to a continuous at-sea nuclear deterrent yet that it would “actively … work .. on global multilateral disarmament efforts,  …  looking at further reductions in global stockpiles and the number of weapons”.  It stated that in government it would look for the evidence, that the 2015 Defence Review would be “examining all capabilities including nuclear”.

It also says that “Labour would … take a leading role internationally to push the agenda of global anti-proliferation with nuclear and non-nuclear states … to advance ‘Global Zero’ which seeks to … [eliminate] … all nuclear weapons.” Labour would have put the ICBMs on the table.

 

Trident

Narcissism

The problem with the NEC rulings on voter suppression isn’t the levying of a £25 fee on registered supporters, although I think the fee is too high (as are the non-concessionary membership fees); it is doing this in conjunction with the dubious legality of prohibiting them from any long term relationship with Labour Party and the use of this mechanism to allow richer people to buy their way around the dubiously legal freeze date of 12th January & 24th June. Allowing the registered supporter registration to be available for only two days cannot be designed to maximise participation.

Like many I argued together with our local party comrades against the Collins rule changes, but we lost. Conference has said, twice, it started in 2010, that registered supporters will have a say in choosing our Leader.

The NEC rulings also stop all those people who have joined since the referendum from voting in both the Leadership and the NEC election. It is cynical narcissistic ploy, promoting the interest of faction above that of mass membership party.

Narcissism

Freeze Date

For members of Lewisham Deptford CLP, if you have a membership card naming me as the contact/secretary, you joined before the Leadership and NEC freeze date deadline, all you have to do now, is ensure you are paid up to date and don’t fall foul of the no abuse rule and hope you haven’t done so recently. I cannot help you to check your arrears status, although some people can do so for themselves on Labour’s MembersNet, which you can activate here.

lewdeplab-card-2015

I have created a short URL for the tweet also: http://bit.ly/29R60aR

Freeze Date

Tears & Transparency

How sad that if one googles ‘Johanna Baxter’ all we get is pointers to her statements on Tuesday’s NEC about bullying and intimidation and Corbyn’s failure to protect her on having a secret ballot.

I have voted for Johanna several times, her centrist and non-slate appeal was what I think the party needed and the fact that she had clean hands of the NEC’s failures during the New Labour ascendency also appealed.

With respect to the events on Tuesday, I am sorry she felt intimated and upset. However, the vote was secret, although this is contrary to the rules. Representatives should vote in such away that they can be held to account by their electors. Hate crimes and fraud should be referred to the police.

Additionally she had asked for members to tell her what they think about the incumbent being included on the ballot paper, the establishment of a freeze date and the role of last year’s registered supporters. I replied using the email I have for her i.e. by replying to a mail she sent me while campaigning for her election to the NEC.  I also posted a version of the letter to my blog; personally I think this is exceptionally reasonable, I can’t have been the only one.

Tears & Transparency