Saying the Quiet Part Out Loud
JVL Introduction
Constituency officers, as we all know have been forbidden from talking about the recommendations of the EHRC report. It is not “competent business”.
And it certainly isn’t on to criticise the recommendation for an independent complaints process.
So what should Peter Mandelson talk about at the recent Jewish Labour Movement conference – his worries that an independent process will hamper the party leader – now that it is someone Mandelson trusts!
As this blog puts it, Mandelson “was there in the 1980s and understands where the power bases of the right are, and how it should be exercised”. Who needs independent processes or oversight when you are in the driving seat?
This article was originally published by All That Is Solid ... on Sun 29 Nov 2020. Read the original here.
Saying the Quiet Part Out Loud
Loading article text…
Interesting and compulsive arguments ..
So the question is – what is to happen to the many Labour Party members – currently languishing in suspension Limbo? Is there not a case for them to be immediately reinstated – particularly given the tenuous nature of the accusations? Is there also not a case for the abandonment of the Catch All – “bringing the Labour Party into disrepute”.
As you say it will be ironic if the Independent Panel brings about much needed reform of the current Disciplinary Processes . These have been rightly criticised by all those with an interest in natural justice.
I am not in the least surprised by Mandelson.
Many years ago a friend was at the National Conference representing his constituency. They had been selected to propose a motion in the latter part of the conference and my friend was to be the proposer. Mandelson kept pestering him throughout the conference to forgo his slot so that the leadership could propose a motion of their own for which they had failed to allocate time. My friend was unwilling to pull his constituency’s motion because he didn’t have the mandate to take such action. He told the story that, shortly before he was due to propose the motion Mandelson, again, asked him to forgo the motion and, when he refused, Mandelson said “I just can’t understand it.” My friend said he replied “No, you wouldn’t Peter. It’s called democracy.”
Irony of ironies if the EHRC manages to force the wreckers to take account of due process.
Two tests for any process
Pantomime Dame could we sack her on the spot for ‘Gross Misconduct’
Chris Williamson and others can we bring them back on grounds of ‘natural justice’
An independent complaints procedure, how is that going to be achieved? How about drafting in Ruth Smeeth, Louise Elman and Maria van der Zyl [BoD] none in or any longer in the Labour party and therefore truly independent? How better than to have those people of Jewish origin to consider complaints in a fair and transparent way?
In order for a fair system to be put in place it must mirror the present Judicial system reflecting natural justice with independent Judges, defendants represented by lawyers, charges properly put and defended, all within time limits etc. How this could be achieved God only knows.
Mandelson is the poster boy and sets the standard for Red Tories past and present
He wakes up every morning and thinks how can we keep the cheap and nasty Tory party in power just like his hero Roy Jenkins
Until we disaffiliate from Red Tories and their supporters we dont have a snowballs chance
Above comment on Smeeth and Elman missing /Sarc at end of paragraph.
I’m not very keen on contracting out disciplinary procedures for the Labour Party and any other organisation of our movement. We need to defend our independence. Imagine the likely response to any attempt to impose such an arrangement on the trade unions. This discussion doesn’t deal with the key question of what actually constitutes antisemitism. We must reject any procedures based on the IHRA definition of antisemitism.
Slowly it is becoming clear the EHRC is not a independent body. Some officials have donated money to the Conservatives. Not long ago Harriet Harman was questioning the independence of a senior official. Asking if there was a conflict of interest. The more you delve into this scandal the more it stinks
Aren’t such decisions up to Conference to decide on – ie vote on?