Cllr Dave Putson refuses his offer of auto exclusion…
JVL Introduction
Cllr Dave Putson has been offered the opportunity by the Labour Party of auto exclusion.
Here he explains why he is refusing to play ball.
He finds the letter trying to exclude him in direct contravention of the Rules of the Labour Party and its Codes of Conduct.
He says so, forcefully.
Councillor Dave Putson
24th August 2021
The Labour Party
Head Office
Southside, 105 Victoria Street, London SW1E 6QT
…
Sirs,
I acknowledge receipt of your letter dated 23 August 2021 entitled :
Notification of Possible Automatic Exclusion from Membership of the Labour Party
Having read your letter I am by turns ridiculing it, and then furious with it. Your letter threatens, once again, my reputation, but worse, all of the efforts and work done by Labour Party activists over the years since its inception.
My ridicule comes as a consequence of you having to change your letter having already embarrassed yourselves and the Labour Party by the manner in which you have written to other Labour Party members on this self same issue, where you invited them to prove a negative. But further, you continue with the idiocy of requiring me to have a premonition of your action. Under your heading Relevant Rules and Definitions you state:
- Chapter 2, Clause I.4.B of the Labour Party Rule Book1 provides:
“A member of the Party who joins and / or supports a political organisation other than an official Labour group or other unit of the Party, or supports any candidate who stands against an official Labour candidate, or publicly declares their intent to stand against a Labour candidate, shall automatically be ineligible to be or remain a Party member, subject to the provisions of Chapter 6.I.2 below of the disciplinary rules.”
- On 20 July 2021, the National Executive Committee of the Labour Party (NEC) confirmed that LAW constituted a “political organisation” for the purposes of Chapter 2, Clause I.4.B of the Labour Party Rule Book.
This is followed up under the risible heading of “Evidence” with:
- We believe that you have engaged in the following acts and that these acts constitute support for LAW.
8.1. On 13 February 2021, you attended a meeting hosted by Labour Against the Witchhunt titled “Building the campaign for free speech conference.”
So let me be perfectly clear, I was at a Labour Against the Witchhunt meeting because:
1) I am Labour
2) I am against this witch-hunt
3) I am in favour of Free Speech.
You may notice the idiocy of your argument as copied above in that I attended this meeting on the 13th February 2021 which is 5 months BEFORE the Labour Party NEC decision to prescribe “Labour Against the Witchhunt” as you determined it a “political organisation’. I note with some interest that “Progress”, “Labour First” and many other political organisations have not been prescribed by the NEC. One presumes that these political organisations do not contain socialists as members and are therefore, deemed by yourselves, to not constitute consideration for prescription.
Anyone steeped in politics may attend all manner of meetings without supporting or being in ideological or political agreement with the groups or organisations staging such events.
However, I recall that my Labour membership card stated that I am a member of a Democratic Socialist party, and as a Democratic Socialist I thought that I was entirely within the Labour Party rulebook in discussing “Free Speech”. I refer you, once again to Appendix 9.2 Code of Conduct which states :
The Labour Party welcomes all who share our aims and values, and encourages political debate and campaigns around the vital issues, policies and injustices of our time.
I am not clear where a conference on “Free Speech” fails the criteria laid out in this part of the rule book, it strikes me that you are decidedly selective in which rules you do, and do not choose, to reference and make yourselves and the Labour Party appear ludicrous in its conduct.
You are clearly working against the interest of the Labour Party membership. You are failing to properly and fully apply the Labour Party rules.
You are behaving in an entirely factional and anti socialist manner.
You are demonstrating an inability to effect even the most basic administrative process in a fair and equitable manner.
You are dispensing with all of the principles and practices that has made this party a success over the last century.
I do not believe that I have breached the Labour Party rule as laid out above Chapter 2 Clause 1.4.B
I will not, therefore, be taking the Labour Party in its current guise, up on its offer of auto excluding myself from the party membership.
It has been some 12 months since I lodged my appeal against suspension from the Labour Party based upon erroneous interpretations of supplied documents and at no point have I been contacted or been provided with anything relating to this appeal. Within that appeal I lodged a Subject Access Request (SAR) which was only eventually responded to after 6 months, not the legally required 30 days. I noted then that that SAR response contained 52 omissions and discrepancies which you told the Information Commissioners you would only answer generally. Your contempt for the Party, the Party membership and the Party’s legacy is exposed in this conduct for all to see. Never have I been so disappointed and appalled by the Party as I currently am when I see hard working activists erroneously accused and attacked in this manner.
Appendix 9.3 Code of Conduct Social Media Policy states :
Everyone should feel able to take part in discussion about our party, country and world. We want to maximise this debate, including critical discussion, as long as it does not result in the exclusion of others
I believe that you, as the GLU, should be paying particular attention to the final part of that Policy “So long as it does not result in the exclusion of others”. However, this may not conform to the factionalising conduct you display and I presume, the Acting General Secretary has instructed, be carried out. I believe that you as the Governance and Legal Unit, together with the Acting General Secretary should also be prepared to pay attention to the other directions as to social media conduct:
It is perfectly possible to have vehement disagreements without descending into personal abuse, shaming people or exhibiting bullying behaviour. Forcefully made points and criticisms of the political views of others are totally legitimate, personal attacks are not.
Your conduct thus far, far from being impartial or even handed on behalf of the wider good of the Labour Party, is proving to be exorcising many of the features the Labour Party rulebook and Policies and are therefore in direct contravention of those said rules and policies.
It can only, therefore be concluded, that these attacks on myself and my good name are as a consequence of my avowedly socialist belief system. In November 2014 at an Employment Tribunal it was finally acknowledged, and brought into law, that Democratic Socialism was a recognised belief system and therefore was to be acknowledged as a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010. Your attacks on my socialist colleagues, and myself, would appear to breach this legislative decision.
Further, the Labour Party rulebook Chapter 1, Clause 5.1 states:
At all levels the Party will ensure that members, elected representatives, affiliated organisations and, where practicable, the wider community are able to participate in the process of policy consideration and formulation.
I believe that by attending the meeting that you reference, and at that time the “Labour against the Witchhunt” was NOT prescribed by the NEC, I was legitimately “participating in the process of policy consideration and formulation”.
I find your letter and its assertions, offensive and ridiculous by turn. You insult me, you insult my colleagues who have supported me, You insult my ward membership who have advocated for me, you insult the residents who voted and elected me to be their councillor.
The information you provide as supposedly evidence only goes to illuminate your lack of application of both the Labour Party rules but also an understanding of what “evidence” is in a legal context. And yet you are employed by the Labour membership in a capacity as part of the “Legal and Governance Unit” (GLU) which you would expect would have a basic grasp of such concepts, but clearly does not. And the Acting General Secretary should be held to account for this, clearly factional conduct.
I have always been involved in the struggle for justice, equality and socialism. I will never stop doing that and would be happy to remain in the Labour Party, to try to pursue that struggle there, or I will work for justice elsewhere as I did before.
Yours,
Dave Putson (Cllr)
Totally brilliant demolition of the shameful Labour Party “case”.
I am in the complete agreement with Councillor Putson, and am on the the point of resigning from the Labour Party myself, solely due to the disappointing and disgraceful recent exclusions and expulsions.
I would not have known about any of this without JVL.
Don’t resign! That’s what Starmer and Evans want you to do. Move into ‘internal exile’.
100% agree with Rita’s view.
If the party machinery could be trusted to respond fairly and quickly to Cllr Putson’s comments, I wouldn’t put forward the suggestions made below. However, that isn’t the case – so …
Cllr Putson’s letter is so well-structured, clear on the issues and brief I wonder whether ENOUGH sympathisers amongst those attending the Labour conference could distribute them amongst their immediate neighbours just before key speeches begin?
If each sympathiser had about 6 copies of the letter to give out then it would be very difficult for those running the conference to spot what was happening early enough to stop it (especially if there were journalists around). It’s more likely the letters will be read and a conversation on the contents struck up if each sympathiser only has a small number of letters to distribute.
Obviously it’d be better if the sympathisers weren’t well-known to the party hierarchy.
They’d have to be ready to answer challenging, possibly unfriendly questions from their neighbours and to face the threat of expulsion by the stewards.
They’d also need to have press releases and soundbites to offer the journalists.
Councillor Dave Putson has hit the nail on the head.
The disgraceful behaviour of the acting general secretary and the GLU brings the Labour party into disrepute.
Leaving the party is playing into the hands of the perpetrators and instigators of the witchunt.
We should all follow Dave’s example and stay and fightback
This is an indicment of the Labour Party. It is clear from Cllr Putson’s letter that the GLU is trying to act without restraint and, more importantly, without reference to the party rules or statements on inclusion and debate. From outside the party (which I am, but I am Jewish) this looks like a witchhunt of socialists – this suggests to me that the party is rapidly moving to the right and shortly it will be no different to the Tories. What the party should be attending to is creating a set of credible policies that support the poorer and those living in deprived areas, of truly creating a fairer society through the application of income tax reform (and higher taxation) and closing tax loop holes. I cannot tell you how disappointed I am that the Labour leadership continues to be almost silent on the key issues that affect so many people. Any thoughts I had of joining Labour (and also joining Jewish Voice for Labour – which presumably in light of the above information runs the risk itself of becoming proscribed) have evaporated.
I whole heartedly support Cllr Putson.
Thanks to David Putson for defending his position so eloquently against this shameful action and having the patience to stay in our party.
Why do what the Right Wing Faction want you to do? Why help them achieve their objective of removing Socialists from the Labour Party?
STAY AND FIGHT!
Yes Rita.
Leaving IS “Auto exclusion” i.e. you are doing it yourself.
Of course, this saves the GLU time and effort in ridding the party of its best people. They WANT you to leave.
As they used to say in The Thick of It “Get with the programme.”
Stay with the part (unless you are a plant to encourage people to leave, which I hope you are not.)
2 things:
1. Leaving the party is what the ruling class would like you to do.
2. I presume the writer means “proscribe” rather than “prescribe.”
Spot on – I can only admire such dedicated people in the public eye and their stand against the injustice being waged against us all by Trilateral Boy, the only person allowed to be a member of the Trilateral Commission whilst holding office in Parliament here, or DC over there
I also agree with Rita’s views totally. I am just about holding on by my finger tips. I find it harder and harder to convince myself that I ought to remain. The behaviour of Evans and co (including leadership and GLU) is scandalous and totally unacceptable.
Brilliant letter by Councillor Putson. And I like the idea of snowballing the letter at conference. People need to know what is going on, the smears, the accusations, the expulsions, the breaking of party rules by those in charge. We as members deserve better.
A brilliant rebuttal by Cllr Putson of his accusers ‘evidence’. (Just to say, could the typo ‘prescribed’ be corrected to ‘proscribed’ before further dissemination of the letter?)
I’m taking a quiet bet that Jewish Voice for Labour won’t be proscribed, because of its title! They’re happy to pick off individual members, even officers, in the hope that no-one will notice that they’re accusing Jews of antisemitism, but …..? Maybe I’m misreading them.
excellent reply. We shall see if those who sent the letter will even read it.
If not then it is clear that all democratic processes in the party are now null and void. In which case people have to draw their own conclusions.
It is a pity that no one from JVL attended the Labour Against the Witchhunt meeting tonite. There was a vigorous debate over our strategy in the Labour Party and whether we should be considering the formation of a socialist movement that bridges those in and out of the LP.
Comrades need to be discussing our forward strategy as it is clear that those now in charge of the LP are intent on a massive purge of anyone deemed to be on the left and in a prominent position.
Unfortunately Momentum is still refusing to raise its head above the parapet
Well said
I no longer know what the Labour Party stands for. I would be most grateful for enlightenment.
I hope JVL will have a presence at conference. This letter shows the utter contempt which the current Labour leadership has for anyone who dissents from its chosen path, which is to say non-opposition, policy free managerialism. Starmer is a Trojan Horse. Labour seems bereft of values.
Mazeltov.
Reading this I am sorry I left the LP but did it top hit them in the pocket perhaps this is the wrong move.
The Rules extracts are totally overlooked by the *auto-excluders*. I found the extracts so useful, I’ve meme’d them, and shared widely ~ along with a link to this article.
A superb letter.
Love & Solidarity Dave x
Forensic, Councillor ! The only word for your reply. Have posted on FB with this comment: “”A political activist and elected local Councillor receives a “NOTIFICATION OF POSSIBLE AUTOMATIC EXCLUSION” from the GOVERNANCE AND LEGAL UNIT.” No, it’s not the “log line” for a remake of Franz Kafka’s “The Trial,” to be directed by Ken Loach. This is a real life event in real time in Britain’s “democratic socialist” Labour Party. And the kafkaesque language of “GLU” and “Auto-Exclusion” are part of it. PS Have I given you an idea for your next picture, Ken? Remember me: I’m the Irishman who had the pleasure of chatting to you, about the making of “The Wind That Shakes the Barley,” as we waited in the queue to gain entry to the Labour Party Conference in Liverpool a couple of years ago ? It saddens me that it may not happen again. I say “may” because, like the protagonists in your films, we need that glimmer of hope to keep going.
You have to wonder why they think anybody would take them up on an offer to “auto-exclude” themselves. I believe they’re trying to create a Hostile Environment and hope that people will resign in disgust.
I agree with Bob Bran that leaving is what they want us to do and, if only for that reason, we should not go along with it. Absent PR, there really isn’t an alternative. But I also note (and agree with) the various comments that have pointed out that creating this Hostile Environment and excluding any socialist activists is more important to the Party leadership than winning an election. Which means they’d rather have another 5-10 years of the incompetent moron who’s currently running the country than let up on their campaign. This does not bode well, as it means things are likely to get worse.
One result they’re probably hoping for is that expelled and disaffected members – of which there’s a fair few already, and they’ll only grow in numbers as things get worse – form another party to stand against Labour. This would allow the leadership to tarnish them as traitors, let them play the “See, I Told You So” Card. Again, absent PR, such a party would be doomed to failure and would enable Johnson to win the next 2-3 elections, if not more. And it would only accelerate the expulsions and proscriptions, as they’d have a new stick to beat us with.
Such is the reality of FPTP.
Brave, but ultimately futile, defiance against the thought police apparatchiks of Labour.
My advice: join a genuine socialist party instead.
I will stay in it for now (but only just). All I can say is: What a crap Party – sorry for the inarticulate language but I’m afraid words fail me at this time.
If there is no place for the Diane Neslan’s, Ken Loach’s Marc Wandsworth’s, Ken Livingstone’s – is there really a place for me????
Lawrence Suss has hit another nail on the head by mentioning tax policy. It is certain that in online discussions “Labour to Win” activists are actively considering Flat Tax – the ideal of extreme ‘free marketeers’. Flat Tax is proportional, not ‘progressive’; they boast that under this system a person on £10k would pay %20 of their total income – so would someone on £1,000,000….
THAT is their notion of ‘fairness’. For many, of course, ‘fairness’ under capitalism is a contradiction in terms – Marx and Engels provide enough clear arguments (e.g. the critique of Proudhon in ‘The Poverty of Philosophy’). But for those who want fairness under capitalism, look critically at Richard Murphy, perhaps, better, at Prem Sikka…
Or do you naively think all this fake ‘AS’ persecution is driven solely by love of Zionist Apartheid, not by love of finance capital (sorry, ‘business’)?
Well done comrade. You are entirely right and incisive.
Very well done ,Dave Putson. Labour Party needs socialists like you now more than ever if it is to survive.
A brilliant response from Councillor Putson. And I believe we should stick with the Party. Its our Party and we can’t abandon it to those who wish it wasn’t. If we leave we are not only abandoning the Party but also abandoning our suspended comrades.
A total indictment of the Labour leadership and its partisan behaviour to anyone the leadership believe is a social Democrat. The fact that not one right wing group has been suspended or any right wing individuals have been auto excluded is all you need to know that it is to remove any and all opposite politely views to the leadership who intend to take the LP far to the right of Tony Blair to become safe for the City and Media.
This letter is a perfect explanation of how those of us who have been expelled feel. It is true that I have fought to protect the rights of Palestinians, all of my life. I fight for other injustices too. I was accused, however, of being a Holocaust denier which I absolutely, have never been. The whole episode breaks my heart and the empathy which drives that emotion is exactly the empathy that drives my sorrow for the Palestinians. I am considering consulting a lawyer to fight this libellous blemish but, whatever the outcome, I no longer feel that my socialism is expressed in the current Labour Party and will not want to be part of it.
Internal exile for me and as mentioned above we would be none the wiser of this treachery if not for the very important work done by JVL and other Socialist groups. Our time will come.
Richard Purdie, it’s all very well saying “join a genuine socialist party instead” and it’s probably true to say that in any other European country – that is, one with an electoral system fit for purpose – the Labour party would have split, one way or another, and we’d now have two parties, one of which would, indeed, be a genuine socialist party. (The Tories would likely have split also, but this is about Labour).
But we don’t live in another European country, we live on the UK, and we don’t have an electoral system that’s fit for purpose, we have FPTP. Under that, it would go one of three ways:
1) The new genuine socialist party sinks without trace, like Respect and all the others. This is the most likely because people who’d like to vote for it are aware that we have FPTP and the implications of it (i.e. the next point in particular). Hence, they’re unlikely to vote for it even if they want to. Hence, it sinks without trace.
2) The new genuine socialist party does really well and takes nearly half the votes off of Labour. Pretty much what the SDP did in 1983. And the result would be the same as happened then: The new genuine socialist party would get maybe a dozen or so seats, Labour would lose 50 or so and the Tories would gain 40 or so. Cementing the Tories in power for a generation or more. Which is what happened in 1983.
3) The new genuine socialist party slowly builds up momentum, like UKIP did. Or like the SNP did. Or, going back to the early years of last century, like Labour did. This might lead, eventually, to a “tipping point” situation whereas, all of a sudden, in the space of one or two elections, Labour collapses and the new genuine socialist party supersedes them. As happened with the SNP and Labour in Scotland in 2015. Or Labour and the Liberals in the 30s. Or as was probably about to happen with UKIP and the Tories a few years ago, before the Tories fended them off by holding the Brexit referendum and then adopting all of UKIP’s policies. This is the “best case” scenario. In all three cases mentioned above, it took generations to happen, 30 years or more. So, 30 years of Tory rule. Or more.
None of these outcomes are appealing. And the reason is, as I’ve mentioned before, we don’t have an electoral system fit for purpose. We have FPTP. We should have PR.
A brilliant letter but, sadly, probably futile. This thing that is now the Labour Party is only on transmit. I joined the party because of Jeremy Corbyn and left it because of Jeremy Corbyn.
I wish all the best to those of you that have remained to keep up the fight for your party. I have joined the Green Party and would suggest that those that left labour in disgust do the same so that you can still oppose this thing calling itself labour. I think in the near future we will see parties coming together in opposition until we have full PR.
Yet more proof that Starmer and company have no interest in being elected. They have no interest in the Labour party their only agenda is to crush socialism. Why this should be and who Starmers backers are is something that we should all try to investigate.
Is there any way the Labour Party could be forced publish the criteria it is using to identify any groups as a “political organisation”.
They seem to be arbitrarily and secretively making things up “on the fly”.
@ Jay Henderson
Jacobin (a blogger)produced an instructive analysis of the individuals seemingly behind these attacks and of the links between them. Worth looking up?
As others have said this is an exemplary letter, and all credit to Cllr Dave Putson. I have to say that until I read this I was unaware that democratic socialism had been accepted as a protected characteristic as per the Equality Act 2010.
On googling the case it was interesting to note that it went to appeal where the claimant was unsuccessful in establishing unfair dismissal on account of his socialism. However the EAT (Employment Appeal Tribunal) did agree that democratic socialism COULD be considered protected, except that in this case it was not the reason for dismissal. Seems like there could well be a case to answer by the LP, BUT clever lawyers will need to prove discrimination on account of socialst beliefs.
Well said that man I wrote something very similar when they came for me your only mistake is saying if you should have to leave! Tell them you do not recognise their authority and will continues to take up the full labour membership rights and human rights to belong to the political party of your choice and your right to free expression.
It really does seem to be a McCarthy-like cancer swelling the Labour party at present. Very concerning, and well done to Councillor Putson for standing up to it. It is indeed ridiculous and horrifying at the same time.
Skwarkbox reporting that a Labour MP / Councillor has now instructed solicitors about the Labour party’s attempt to auto-exclude her. She cites similar grounds to those raised by Cllr Putson.
Not a lawyer BUT I don’t see how any court of law hearing cases like these would allow any organisation to retrospectively punish its members and defame their reputations over behaviour that wasn’t contrary to the rules in force at the time committed – and still isn’t today.
Absolutely brilliant and spot on. I actually left immediately but regret not staying for the fight. Labour since Wilson but I just couldn’t stomach Starmer.
I sincerely hope that the good people who voted for Starmer as leader because they believed and trusted him about his selection promises, will finally see he was lying and urgently needs to be removed as leader.
Are you suing if they exclude you? Are you crowdfunding?
Brilliant response to the despicable misuse of process by the current Labour Party hierarchy against an obvious and true socialist.
Just one thing, please, you and they are not doctors ‘prescribing’ medicines. LAW has been ‘proscribed’. As it is, grammatically, it makes no sense, although I agree with the sentiments therein
John Randall
As an active Union Member for over 60 years I am really confused as to why the Labour Party should consider purging Socialists is acceptable. Surely there would not have been any Labour Party without the Socialists of the Trades Unions who formed and paid for it.
The treatment of Councillor Putson is really unfair and against natural justice.
This makes me so angry, all the evidence shows that Starmer has only 2 objectives, to stop criticism of Israel and support for Palestine. Every action he takes weakens the LP, the suspensions and expulsions are all part of his plan. Nothing else matters to him.
Dave. I fully support you – this whole business has the nasty taste of bullying. Indeed a sad day for Labour that it should come to this.
(109
An exceptional, accurately excoriating and forensic letter with ammunition against the regime, that truly deserves wide publication to Labour members!