Newham Trigger Ballot 1: Letter to the Labour Party NEC from local party members (17 Jan 2017)

1

Glenis Wilmott MEP, Chair of the National Executive Committee
Officers and Members of the Labour Party National Executive Committee
Iain McNichol, General Secretary of the Labour Party
The Labour Party
Southside
105 Victoria Street
London SW1 6QT
(Via email)
14th
January 2017
Dear Ms Wilmott MEP, NEC Officers and NEC members,
Re: Affirmative Nomination for the Reselection of the Directly Elected Mayor of
Newham: 25th October 2016 – 4th
December 2016 (the Process)
1. Context and Purpose of this Letter
1.1 We are writing to you following your response to our previous letter of 31st
October 2016 to inform you about the many failures of process/propriety and
procedural irregularities in the Affirmative Nomination process (the Process) for
the Reselection of the Directly Elected Mayor of Newham, which took place
between the 25th October 2016 and 4th
December 2016. These irregularities
have made a material difference to the result of the Process, tipping its result in
favour of the incumbent Mayor by 20 votes to 17.1
These irregularities are set
out below. We strongly recommend that a number of ballots should be declared
void or held in abeyance pending the result of an enquiry set up by the NEC
and / or the receipt of further information;
1.2 The NEC may well ask why Party members and Councillors in Newham, where
Labour has no effective opposition and none on the Council, have approached
you about the matters set out in this letter. The answer is a simple one. In May
2018, Sir Robin Wales will have been Leader and the Mayor of Newham for
some 23 years. Many people will feel that he has done a good job in this
period and it is not our purpose to argue this point in this letter. Rather we
make a different point;

1
For detail – see Appendix 1, Section 3.

2

1.3 If Sir Robin Wales becomes the Labour Party DEM candidate as a result of an
open and fair re-selection process, we and other members would all support (in
full and without equivocation) his candidacy. However what we and other
members cannot accept is a process, such as that which has taken place
recently in Newham, in which supporters of the incumbent Mayor have
shamelessly manipulated the Process;
1.4 It is our view that if the breaches of the rules as set out in this document and
which have taken place during the Process are allowed to stand unchanged by
the national Party – this will lead to widespread disillusionment about the way in
which existed when some of us had to fight against Newham’s Freemasons in
the 1970’s and 1980’s It will turn off our membership and stifle the ongoing
community renewal that Newham so desperately needs. Rather what we now
need is an open, democratic and accountable process, which all Party
members can sign up to and be fully involved in.
1.5 The signatories to this letter are Labour Party members from both East Ham
and West Ham CLPs of many years standing. Between us we have a collective
party membership of several hundred years. We state for the record that we
are not part of an organised grouping within the Party but are concerned
Labour Party members who are appalled and concerned by the breaches of the
rules and conflicts of interest that have characterised the Process so far;
1.6 We have circulated this letter to all members of the Labour Party’s National
Executive Committee, as well as the General Secretary. A more detailed
background document is attached at Appendix 1 to this letter.
2. Recommendations to the NEC and NEC Organisation Sub Committee
2.1 We request that the NEC (and its Organisation Sub-Committee):
Establishes a full enquiry into the matters set out in this letter and
meanwhile halts the Affirmative Nomination Process for the re-selection
of the Democratically Elected Mayor of Newham, pending receipt of the
report of this enquiry.

3

3 Newham Affirmative Nomination (Trigger Ballot): Main issues
3.1 We raise three major failings in the Process in this letter and one
supplementary point. The major failings are:
i. Some Trades Unions have voted more than once for each one of their
affiliated branches (e.g. 4 branches equals 4 votes). Other Trades Unions
have voted only once (e.g. 6 branches equals one vote), despite having more
than one affiliated branch in one of the two CLP’s in Newham. This is because
of a different interpretation of the rules;
ii. There have been significant breaches of the rules in individual ballots;
iii. There has been a serious conflict of interest between the different roles of
those charged with the management of the Process.
3.2 As a supplementary point the Newham Labour Group Organiser has played an
overtly political and improper role in the Process.
4 Affiliated Organisations (Affiliates)
4.1 At the outset we state that it is not our purpose, in general, to question the
internal affairs of Affiliates. Our concerns relate to the Party’s handling of the
votes of these Affiliates during the recent Trigger Ballot Process in Newham.
4.2 We do raise significant questions about the number and basis of the votes cast
by the Affiliates that participated in the Process;
4.3 At the count some of the votes cast were a single vote from a national Affiliate
of the Party, while other Affiliates voted multiple times on the basis that each of
their affiliated branches were entitled to a separate single vote. It cannot be
right that the NEC accepts this stark variation in practice within the franchise of
the Process. Despite several requests the Procedures Secretary has been
unwilling or unable to provide a list of eligible votes in the Newham Trigger
Ballot Process.2

2
For detail - see Appendices 2 and 3. Appendix 2 also contains a complaint against the
Procedures Secretary’s refusal to answer questions about the Process, which has never
been answered by the Regional Director.

4

5 Procedural Guidance
5.1 Procedural Guidance circulated by the Procedures Secretary on the 26th
and
28th
October 2016 stated that ‘Affiliated organisations eligible to make an
affirmative nomination are those that have been affiliated to any CLP with a
geographical interest in the electoral area at least 60 days prior the freeze date.
Each affiliated organisation is entitled to make one affirmative nomination only,
even if it is affiliated to more than one CLP with a geographical interest in the
electoral area’. We are aware of no other Procedural Guidance issued by the
NEC other than that of 2012, which is consistent with that issued by the
Procedures Secretary - except where Party Conference 2016 has changed the
rules in respect of the date of affiliation for CLP AGMs;3
5.2 This Procedural Guidance says nothing about whether the separate branches
of Affiliates each had one vote in the ballot or whether the Affiliate Organisation
as a whole had one vote in the ballot. This is different to affiliation to CLPs
where it is made clear in the Party’s rules that individual branches affiliate and
vote separately;
5.3 In consequence the GMB trade union voted 4 times while UNISON, who were
only sent one ballot paper, voted once. An observer at the count states that the
‘four forms returned from the GMB…were all signed by the Regional
Secretary…three of these forms were identical. Stapled to these three forms
was another piece of paper with the Branch name on it, but no signature’.4
This
suggests that one ballot paper was sent to the GMB, which was then copied;
5.4 We have also been told that UNISON received only one ballot paper and
consequently only voted once. There is also the issue that UNISON believed
they were only entitled to one vote. Had they been told differently then up to 6
UNISON branches could have voted in the Process, thereby potentially
changing the Trigger Ballot outcome. There is also the point that if trade
union affiliates are allowed more than one vote, it presents a situation where

3
For detail – see Appendices 4a, 4b and 5 (PART A) & 5 (PART B).
4
For details of the Newham Trigger Ballot count see Appendices 6(1), 6(2) and 6(3).

5

trade union affiliates are able to affiliate as many branches as they want to any
CLP, thereby completely out-voting Party Branches and the democratic
expression of Branch members;5
5.5 It is unacceptable that this consequence of the unclear guidance, issued by the
Procedures Secretary, to West Ham CLP, East Ham CLP and Branch
Secretaries be allowed to stand;
5.6 Recommendation: We call on the NEC to affirm that the same
interpretation of the Procedural Guidance for the Process must apply to
all Affiliated Organisations and to use their powers of interpretation to
make a clear and unequivocal ruling on this matter, which will apply to
the Newham Trigger Ballot Process retrospectively.
6 Who Is Affiliated and Entitled to Vote?
6.1 The Procedures Secretary wrote to the two West Ham and East Ham CLP
Secretaries involved in the Process asking them to provide him with details of
their Affiliated Organisations, quoting the unclear guidance set out above;6
6.2 The Secretary of West Ham CLP provided a clear and detailed list of all
Affiliated Organisations;7
6.3 A member of the East Ham CLP EC has also asked the East Ham CLP
Secretary what information about Affiliated Organisations she sent the
Procedures Secretary. To date no reply has been received. In addition to this,
at a Branch meeting held the 12th
January 2017, the Secretary of East Ham
CLP (who is also a member of the Branch concerned) was also asked for this
information verbally by an East Ham CLP member and refused to provide it.8

5
For the UNISON view on trade union affiliate branches see Appendix 7.
6
For detail - see Appendix 8.
7
For detail - see Appendix 9.

8
East Ham CLP Secretary was asked the question at approximately 9.15pm on 12th
January
2017 following the Manor Park Branch meeting.

6

6.4 Therefore, we do not know which Affiliated Organisations were properly
affiliated to East Ham CLP by the freeze date and whether they were paid up
as at 31 December 2015; and if affiliating after this date, they affiliate at a date
in compliance of the 60-day rule. The matter of eligible affiliate organisations
has not been raised or discussed at East Ham CLP since its last AGM on the
17th
September 2015.
6.5 If any new affiliations have been accepted by the East Ham CLP EC, or its
officers prior to the freeze date, then they and all others should have been
clearly set out in a consolidated record and issued to the Procedures
Secretary, with the name of the relevant contact in the Organisation
concerned, who should not be the delegate, prior to Ballot papers being
issued. We ask for sight of this record if it exists;
6.6 It is unclear whether the Procedures Secretary sought guidance from the
Regional Director for himself and the LCF Executive as to how many votes
each Affiliated Organisation should receive and therefore how many ballot
papers to send each one and certainly did not act upon it if he was told;
6.7 This means that with regards to Affiliates, the Procedures Secretary could not
have been able to verify:
i. Who was entitled to vote, i.e. the total number of valid votes that could be
cast;
ii. Who was the right person or persons to receive ballot papers in any
Affiliated organisation; and
iii. From whom he should have received completed ballot papers.
6.8 So far as we can tell Ballot papers were sent in some cases to delegates and
in other cases to National or Regional Officers by the Procedures Secretary.
We therefore argue that ballot papers should always have gone to a National
or Regional Officer to ensure proper probity and propriety in their use;
6.9 The Procedures Secretary has failed to check and determine the eligibility of
all Affiliated Organisations claiming voting rights and to set this out clearly and
in full for interested parties prior to the close of the ballot. In turn this is a

7

major failing of his oversight of the Process. It also suggests ‘there was
something to hide’;
6.10 Regretfully, we are left with the suspicion that the East Ham CLP is being
used as a conduit through which organisations can suddenly affiliate and
obtain a vote in the process. The refusal to provide non-confidential
information about eligibility strengthens this suspicion;
6.11 In any democratic voting procedure the basis of the franchise must be clear in
advance to all participants. It is quite wrong that this does not appear to have
been the case in a democratic organisation such as the Labour Party. It
would not be allowed in a national Labour Party election;
6.12 Recommendation: We call on the NEC to review whether the ballot was
properly conducted by the Procedures Secretary on the basis of a pre-
agreed list of properly paid up and eligible Affiliated Organisations; the
number of votes they were entitled to; that all ballot papers were sent to
the appropriate person(s) (i.e. not Affiliate Branch delegates) and that all
ballot papers received were properly verified prior to being counted.
7 Individual Branch and Affiliated Organisation Ballots
7.1 Individual ballots where failings and breaches of the rules and guidance
occurred are set out in the Table 1 below:
Table 1: Individual Branch and Affiliated Organisation Ballots
Branch Issues
1. Custom House ! See Appendix 11
! The Branch Chair who is disabled and blind from birth
asked for the Branch TB meeting to be delayed till
near the end of the Process as she was recovering
from an accident related to her disability. Knowing
this, the Procedures Secretary convened the meeting
in the first week of the Process and the Branch Chair
was unable to attend, because of her accident;
! The Affirmative resolution was carried by one vote
(7:6);
! Discriminatory behaviour against a visually impaired
member on the part of the Procedures Secretary

8

affected the ballot result, which should therefore be
disallowed;
! We ask that this ballot be declared void and that
Custom House Branch be deemed not to have
voted.
2. Manor Park ! See Appendices 12, 13 and 14 consisting of two
letters and an Appendix to the second letter
concerning the Manor Park Branch Trigger Ballot
Meeting.
! The meeting was deliberately delayed beyond the
advertised time by the Chair leaving the room and
additional people entered the room;
! On registration, voting members received a credential.
Non-members or ineligible members could also have
entered the room, because there was no effective
door control;
! The rules were not explained. Credentials were
exchanged for ballot papers. The first ballot was tied
(30:30) and some people left the room before the
second ballot;
! Non-members could, therefore, have been given a
second ballot;
! In the second ballot where the affirmative resolution
was passed by one vote (29:28) the Branch Chair and
Regional Representative overruled the tellers who
believed that a disallowed ballot paper was valid;
! These two individuals had a direct financial interest in
the outcome (Special Responsibility Allowance of
c£35,000 and Labour Group Organiser directly line
managed by the Mayor) and should not have
officiated;
Manor Park Branch be deemed not to have voted.
3. Plaistow North ! The Plaistow North branch Trigger ballot meeting was
held at a local community centre in the ward, which
has two entrance points, one of which allows public
entrance via a door on the adjoining side road to the
main road entrance. The notice letter to branch
members didn’t specify which entrance they had to
arrive to be verified and signed in;
! Due to non-existent signage at the community centre
and lack of clear information on the notification letter,
a number of members missed the opportunity to
participate in the Trigger Ballot. These were members
who had been waiting at the main entrance and when
told of the correct entrance point, were turned away
by the door steward who is a Mayoral Advisor with a
Special Responsibility Allowance as the meeting had
already started;
! As with Manor Park branch, non-members or
ineligible members could also have entered the room,
because there was no effective door control;

9

! Members have complained about unfamiliar
individuals at the meeting, including one person who
was caught filming the meeting who after some
checks transpired not to be a member of the branch in
any case;
! A concerned branch member submitted a complaint to
the Procedures Secretary and to date no response
has been received.

4. BECTU ! See Appendix 15
! BECTU has been affiliated to East Ham CLP for
several years;
! We do not believe that affiliation fees were paid by
BECTU in 2016;
! The Branch delegate has stated in a communication
with another member that ‘I pledged my vote to Robin’
and that she ‘then liaised with Patrick about the
signing of the affiliate papers’, i.e. the delegate alone
decided how to vote in the ballot;
BECTU be deemed not to have voted.
5. TSSA ! See Appendix 10
! Following the Trigger Ballot count, a non-executive
member of the Newham LCF and member of West
Ham CLP GC contacted the national Political Officer
of TSSA expressing surprise at the way TSSA had
voted yes in the affirmative nomination ballot;

! The Political Officer expressed surprise in response
saying he had not been sent any paperwork for TSSA
to participate in the Trigger Ballot;
! It appears that the Procedures Secretary adopted an
inconsistent approach in relation to communicating
with Affiliates;
! The Newham LCF and member of West Ham CLP
GC subsequently wrote to the Procedures Secretary
asking for clarification of who he wrote to and why
they were selected but to date has not received a
reply;
! At the London Regional Board meeting on the 6th
December 2016, a representative from TSSA had
questioned the validity of the TSSA vote and was
advised to put a complaint in writing.
! Pending any investigation into where the
Procedures Secretary sent this vote, we ask that
this ballot be held in abeyance and not counted.
6. Newham
Fabians
! See Appendix 16
! The national Fabian Society is presently carrying out
an investigation into the Newham Fabian Society’s
Trigger Ballot vote due to be presented to the national
committee of the Fabian Society on the 24th
January
2017;
! The Newham Fabian Society bank statements show
that no affiliation fees have been paid to either CLP

10

since 2010;
! Notice of a Trigger Ballot Meeting was not sent to at
least 4 of the 6 long standing local members recorded
in the bank statements as paying their local
membership fees via standing order;
! There is no evidence that such a meeting was ever
held and/or that a ballot or vote of members was ever
held;
! The previous Branch Secretary has refused to reply to
correspondence on the matter;
! In the interim and pending the results of the
national Fabian Society enquiry we ask that this
ballot be held in abeyance and not counted.
7. Newham
Christians on the
Left
! See Appendix 17
! In view of the serious issues raised in the West Ham
CLP letter to the Christians on the Left including:
i. Their meeting notice stated only ‘We will also
canvass opinion on the Mayoral Trigger Ballot’
ii. Just over four days notice of the meeting was
given by email, not the seven-day requirement
placed on Labour Party Branches.
iii. There was only a short discussion before the Chair
announced that the Branch would submit a ‘Yes’
vote for the sitting mayor in the
iv. The Chair is a Cabinet member with a Special
Responsibility Allowance of £33,735.
! We ask that in the interim and pending the receipt
of a reply to the West Ham CLP letter that this
ballot be held in abeyance and not counted.
8 Conflicts of Interest
8.1 The Newham Local Campaign Forum (LCF) does not function. Indeed some
would say that this is deliberate.9
The current officers were elected in March
2016 (at a delayed 2015 AGM which is contrary to the Labour Party rule book)
and it has only met once since then. No other EC members have been elected
despite the rules allowing for four other members to be elected (two per CLP). It
has been stated by the Regional Director, a position supported by the General
Secretary and Chair of the NEC, that there is no conflict between the LCF

9
For detail - see Appendix 21

11

Chair’s role as a Councillor receiving a Special Responsibility Allowance10
and
his role as Procedures Secretary. We do not agree;
8.2 Presently, there are six officers of the LCF, excluding the Mayor. Four are
Councillors in receipt of Special Responsibility Allowances. The remaining two
are closely related to Councillors receiving Special Responsibility Allowances;
8.3 At the London Borough of Newham, 22 out of 60 Newham Councillors hold a
Special Responsibility Allowance, which is within the power of the Directly
Elected Mayor to give and remove at any time and one other member is related
to a Councillor who receives such an Allowance. 6 more councillors receive an
SRA following an election by the Labour Group. This gives the Mayor
substantial powers of patronage over both individual members of the Labour
Group and over the Group as a whole, even when Cabinet Members cannot
vote in Labour Group elections;11
8.4 All decisions about the Process have been made by the Procedures Secretary
and/or the current Newham LCF officers. The Procedures Secretary has not re-
assured us in any way or provided evidence that he has maintained the
fairness and integrity of the Process. He has not answered any of the
questions put to him about his and the LCF Executive’s management of the
Process. They include who made key decisions and how they were made; who
was properly affiliated and eligible to vote; their voting entitlement; how votes
were verified and in what way conflict of interest issues on the part of himself
and the LFC Executive were managed;
8.5 The Procedures Secretary and Newham LCF Executive have imposed their
preferred timetable on the Process without consultation; issued no clear
guidance about the Process to Branches or Affiliated Organisations; and

10
Councillors who hold certain positions, such as holding a portfolio within the executive,
being the chair of a committee, or being the community lead councillor for a community
forum area, are paid a special responsibility allowance (SRA) to cover their expenses in
carrying out their extra duties.
Councillors are paid the SRA in addition to their basic
allowance. If a councillor holds more than one position, they will be paid only one SRA, for
the position, which has the highest rate.
11
For detail - see Appendix 18, which records the position in 2015/6. There have been minor
changes in 2016/7.

12

appointed Observers at all Trigger Ballot meetings who all support the status
quo, despite other LFC members offering to officiate. Such a closed process
does not engender confidence in its fairness;12
8.6 We have set out our concerns in respect of the behaviour of the Procedures
Secretary in Sections 5 and 6 above and in this Section. This behaviour derives
directly from his and the other members of the LCF Executive’s conflict of
interest in all the matters discussed in this letter;
8.7 Recommendation: We call on the NEC to investigate this conflict of
interest and set down appropriate guidelines for its avoidance in the
future.
9 Role of the Newham Labour Organiser and London Region Representative
9.1 The Newham Labour Group Organiser, Mr Carl Morris officiated at 5 Trigger
Ballot meetings where it is unclear whether he was the LCF representative or
the London Region representative. He was also present at the Count, where
he described himself as the ‘Newham Labour Party agent’;13
9.2 Although employed by the Party, for pay and ration purposes this individual is
wholly managed by the Mayor. He has made rulings, which have affected at
least one ballot result (Manor Park Branch - see section 7 above);
9.3 He has a clear conflict of interest in the Process and should have had nothing to
do with it.
10 Conclusions
10.1 We have set out above the key issues that have arisen during the Affirmative
Nomination Process involving the:
i Voting rights of Affiliated Organisations
ii Flaws in individual ballots; and
iii Conflicts of interest.

12
For detail - see Appendix 19
13
For details of the Newham Trigger Ballot count see Appendices 6a (1), (2) and (3).

13

10.2 The issues we raise could potentially change the outcome of the Process. It
is for this reason that we ask for a full consideration by the NEC of all the
matters raised in this letter;
10.3 We seek remedies from the NEC as set out in this letter;
10.4 We request that the NEC (and its Organisation Sub-Committee):
Establishes a full enquiry into the matters set out in this letter and
meanwhile halts the Affirmative Nomination Process for the re-selection
of the Democratically Elected Mayor of Newham, pending receipt of the
report of this enquiry.
10.4 The irregularities set out in this letter question the credibility of the process to
the extent that local party members in Newham may consider taking further
legal advice to ensure due process is followed. We hope this can be avoided
through a transparent consideration of the multiple issues now causing
widespread concern to party members in Newham.
We look forward to hearing from you.
Yours sincerely,
Members of East Ham and West Ham CLPs

Newham Trigger Ballot 1: Letter to the Labour Party NEC from local party members (17 Jan 2017)

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Newham Trigger Ballot 1: Letter to the Labour Party NEC from local party members (17 Jan 2017)

Similar to Newham Trigger Ballot 1: Letter to the Labour Party NEC from local party members (17 Jan 2017) (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (17)

Newham Trigger Ballot 1: Letter to the Labour Party NEC from local party members (17 Jan 2017)