Solidarity, peace and justice OUT! Slavish conformity IN!
JVL introduction
We’ve been aware for some time that Labour Party central office was keen to clamp down on the range of organisations that constituency parties may affiliate to. It has only now become clear how draconian the restrictions are – and how indicative of the party’s political direction under Keir Starmer
According to a letter sent to some CLPs, it will no longer be permissible to support groups such as Palestine Solidarity Campaign, Labour CND, Stop the War, Jewish Voice for Labour or Jeremy Corbyn’s Peace & Justice Project without specific approval from the National Executive Committee. The letter listing these and other groups (see full list below) makes it clear that such approval will almost certainly be denied. It’s no surprise that JVL is targeted. Many members will be shocked, however, to see that anti-war, pro-peace, pro-Palestinian, Black and feminist groups are listed, along with Health Campaigns Together which includes Keep Our NHS Public.
The text published below originates from Labour’s “Regional Governance & Local Government Southern Hub”. It is reasonable to assume that similar restrictions apply nationwide.
The letter makes a distinction between on the one hand groups that are officially affiliated to the Labour Party nationally and are entitled to send delegates to local parties, and on the other hand organisations which have benefited in the past from affiliation by individual branches and CLPs who support their aims but are now considered beyond the Pale.
It’s another nail in the coffin of Labour Party democracy, consistent with the message Starmer and his front-line supporters have been feeding a sometimes incredulous media — that being pro-business, pro-NATO and pro-Israel is now a requirement of Labour Party membership.
Parts of the letter have already been published by Skwawkbox. We have redacted the text to remove names of individuals.
Middle East Eye have a good discussion of this assault on independent thought
“The following affiliations are no longer valid”
Hi all,
Thanks for the emails which xxxx has passed on to me to pick up. Organisations that are nationally affiliated to the party are eligible to affiliate to any CLP provided they pay the appropriate fee and the CLP cannot debate or decide on their affiliations. This would cover the [sic] any organisations listed here – https://labour.org.uk/people/ societies/ or here – https://labour.org.uk/people/ unions/ as well as the Co-Op Party.
With the others, I assume it is the case that the CLP that [sic] has previously opted to affiliate to these organisations rather than the other way around. Any such affiliations require approval from the NEC in advance. The following affiliations are therefore no longer valid, and the CLP may not renew its affiliation without approval from the NEC. To do so would breach party rules. These are:
Palestine Solidarity Campaign, Labour Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, Stop the War Coalition, Republic, London Irish Abortion Rights Campaign, Jewish Voice for Labour, Somalis for Labour, Sikhs for Labour, All African Women’s Group, Health Campaigns Together, The Campaign against Climate Change Trades Union, Peace & Justice Project.
The Labour Party has a large number of affiliates who affiliate to us. Other groups in and around the Labour Party can seek affiliation should they meet the party’s requirements. Labour Campaign for International Development is one of the more recent examples of this. The party is currently drawing up further guidance on this and compiling a list of organisations that have been given approval previously. Organisations that would not be eligible to affiliate to the Labour Party are highly unlikely to be an organisation that CLPs will be given permission to affiliate to.
More generally, our guidance is that CLPs should be spending resources on campaigning towards getting as many candidates elected as possible as well as electing a Labour Government at the next general election. There are plenty of opportunities for members to get involved with outside organisations without the need for the CLP to provide an annual fee or commit to a constitution/process that is outside of the Labour Party.
Should the CLP have any affiliation requests, please send them to xxxx and myself (with costs and justification) and we will pick them up but I would strongly advise the CLP to hold off and await the further guidance about which organisations have been deemed to meet the requirements for CLPs to affiliate to as the NEC is unlikely to grant permissions in the meantime.
I hope this is clear and helpful.
Kind regards
Xxx Xxx
Acting Head of Regional Governance & Local Government | Southern Hub
The Labour Party
One can only assume the JLM is now proscribed, especially as it instructed/advised its members not to support labour in the 2019 general election.
There’s a well-known term for this administrative approach to crushing discussion: Stalinism. What will the penalties be for breach? Being stood up against a wall? I am beyond appalled.
Odd that Somalis for Labour and Sikhs for Labour are now banned. Sikhs for Labour has a pic on its front page of Keir Starmer – is he to be banned too? What the LP calls “Chinese for Labour” but seems to call itself “East and South East Asians for Labour” has not been banned. One thing is sure – if there are many Somalis and Sikhs who were “for Labour”, they must now be considering their position. And Irish and African women too – but that’s just normal racism.
Just imagine how authoritarian the next Labour government would be should they win the next election I think I will be voting Green if not standing as an independent myself. I shall encourage as many ex-Labour people to stand as independents as I think this is now the only way to get real positive change in this country as the choice we have now, is no real choice just the illusion of it.
Tony Greestein wrote a comment on another article that the accusation of “anti-semitism” is a weapon used by racists against anti-racists. I couldnt agree more. This latest Stalinesque directive is symptomatic of far more important move by the Zionist Lobby than Starmer represents. In countries across the Western World, the IHRA definition of “Anti-Semitism” is being used as a gagging order against anyone who speaks for Palestinian rights and criticises Israel. Starmer is a talking head, obeying his ideological masters, at a time when politics across the Western World is moving dangerously right-wards. The banning of organisations like JVL and Stop The War, shouldnt come as a surprise. I`m surprised that various “soft-left” Labour MPs havent yet felt the heat in their constituences or from the Parliamentary Party. Surely it cant be long before they have to make a decision of principle? Do they stay in this aberation of what was a “Labour Party” – for socialists, trades unionists and activists – or make a decision to face up to the new reallity of what Labour is: a racist, establishment party, which openly supports anti-unionism, authoritarianism and apartheid. As a non Jewish supporter of JVL I cant see how its worth wasting time, money and stress on fighting the Labour bureaucracy or demanding a democratic hearing. The party has lost any sense of morality or compassion. Its only aim is power and the protection of the status quo. I dont recognise the party today, as the same one which I first joined in 1976. Whatever next?
Including Jewish Voice for Labour as an organisation banned from CLP affiliation is distinctly anti-Semitic, as it includes Jewish members who are committed to the true ideals of Labour which are to fight racism (including anti-Semitism, Anti-BAME racism, LGBTQ discrimination, and anti breaches of human rights. In comparison, the Jewish Labour Movement, a permitted group which includes non-Jews is affiliated to the Zionist Federation and also the Israeli Labour Party members, and which supports the Occupation and the apartheid policies of the Israeli State. The proscribed groups are important democratic, human and civil rights organisations which should be ones the should be embraced by the Labour Party, but instead are reviled by the current leadership, bring the party into disrepute and shame. This move is probably unconstitutional and should be rejected by members and CLPs.
Is there any reason to remain in the so-called “Labour” Party?
JVL should step up to the plate and call for the founding of a new mass party. Today.
Anonymous ukase of course – tyranny thrives in the dark.
Diversity of opinion and debate are being outlawed in the Labour Party. It is dead.
I had a motion for Tunbridge Wells CLP to affiliate to JVL disallowed by Labour Regional office as long ago as 2021. It’s been brewing for some time.
makes me sick. its like Starmer and his sycophants have marched in and taken occupation of a once Democratic Socialist party.
It seems that I could never return to being a Labour Party member because I like to think for myself and I don’t need Keir Starmer and David Evans to do it for me.
When the whole of the MSM act in unison and conspire in a black op against the left to demonise and smear them AND, at the same time, hoodwink and deceive and manipulate millions of people AND, in so doing, subvert democracy, then we are living in a fascist state.
I left the Labour Party after 30 years when it was policy to invade Iraq. The Party has shown no remorse. Tony Blair is knighted and human rights campaigners are being chucked out. I believe I was right to leave.
I am a member of one of the listed organisations and on the mailing list of several others.
The instructions from HQ prohibit seem to branches from affiliating formally to these organisations if a subscription fee is involved. Would this also mean CLP branches could not pass resolutions of solidarity or send motions to Conference? Unfortunately this seems highly likely.
Starmer and his supporters rely on people simply going along with his demands.
The correct response would be to ignore it and see what he does. Does he really want to have a bust-up with so many CLPs?
The Labour Party which has emerged with Starmer seems to be fraudulent.
Membership cards still say that Labour is a democratic socialist party.
The controlling faction is actually anti-democratic and anti-socialist. Yet it expects the membership to put its efforts into campaigning for it. And members are regularly asked to give it money. I think it is a rotten swindle.
Agree with Tony.
Only slight additions are that those CLPs which propose to ignore HQ diktats should first (1) “straw poll” their own members (to find out how determined the branch is to act, what foreseeable sacrifices members are prepared to make and how best to counter HQ retaliatory measures) and (2) sound out potentially sympathetic CLPs – neighbouring and otherwise – to coordinate their actions and PR.
It would seem reasonable to surmise that the proscription of the above groups/organisations is based on Chapter 1, Clause 2.5 of the National Rules:
“5.Other organisations: A .Political organisations not affiliated or associated under a national agreement with the Party, having their own programme, principles and policy, or distinctive and separate propaganda, or possessing branches in the constituencies, or engaged in the promotion of parliamentary or local government candidates, or having allegiance to any political organisation situated abroad, shall be ineligible for affiliation to the Party.”
Regardless as to whether or not this is the case there has to be an explicit identification as to the criteria used to determine which groups are permitted to be affiliates to CLP’s and vice versa other than some arbitrary applied administrative convenience.
The question needs to be raised as to what this criteria is. Looking at the National Rules only one legitimate criteria is apparent: ie. That association with this groups/organisations is “inimical with the aims and values of the Party”.
Should this be the case, and the question needs to be asked and determined unequivocally, a further question arises:
If the criteria for this bar is based on a decision that affiliation on the part of Party Units with the above listed groups/organisations are inimical to the aims and values of the Party under Party Rules it needs to be confirmed one way or the other as to whether the same bar applies to Party members under Party Rule Chapter 2, Clause 1. 5.B.v
“v .Possessing membership of, providing financial assistance to, sitting on the ruling body of or otherwise supporting (as may be defined by the NEC) any political organisation that the NEC in its absolute discretion shall declare to be inimical with the aims and values of the Party”
i.e. That any Party Member who has any affiliation with or association to any of these groups/organisation is in breach of Party Rule Chapter 2, Clause 1. 5.B.v?
Which would automatically bar them from being members of the Labour Party.
If, however, the same bar does not apply to Party Members as set out above why is it that Party Unit affiliation to the above listed groups/organisations would be in breach of Party Rules on the grounds/criteria that such affiliation would be inimical with the aims and values of the Party, but not Party Members?
These questions need to be explicitly asked and explicitly answered.
Thank you for the detailed quoting from the Rule Book. Heinous as we feel this action is, these groups have not been proscribed, so being a member or supportere of any or all of the named groups would not lead to disciplinary action but local Party organisations can no longer choose which groups to affiliate to – and pay an affiliation or membership fee – without the approval of the NEC. It is bad but not quite as draconian as some have painted. It is bad enough, of course, to call this out but it is important not to hype up the strictures…
Thank you for your considered response Leah.
However, it should still seem reasonable to determine what the criteria is for the decision of the NEC in deciding which groups/organisations are eligible or not in this case?
Assuming the NEC are proceeding on the basis of the Party Rules; If the criteria which determines this is whether or not the organisation/group is considered by the NEC to be inimical with the aims and values of the Party than the key questions posed remain valid.
It would not seem reasonable to surmise that the NEC in making such a determination would do so on the basis of individual or collective whim or arbitrary exercise of power. There must be a rational and reasonable criteria applied in making such a determination and the only legitimate basis has to be within the Rules everyone operates to.
And those Rules, and the procedures which flow from them, have to be applied consistently. Members, as well as Party Units have both a reasonable expectation and a right under the rules for clarity so that we know where we stand one way or the other in this case/instance. Particularly when we are operating in a context in which the NEC of the day hand out discipline letters like confetti to members simply for tweeting support for something on social media.
All this goes to prove that the Labour Party is far more centralist than the Communist Party of Britain. I suspected Starmer right from when as newly-elected leader he stood behind a rostrum containing the slogan ‘New Leadership’.
I’m beginning to feel like a member of a secret society being hunted down for expressing opinions and loyalties proscribed by an all-powerful state. I quit the comments section below the line at the Guardian when it became impossible to say what I feel and report what I observe without being instantly ‘moderated’ – a useful code word for a brutal and unchallengeable form of right-wing censorship. Since then I have migrated to Twitter, where it is at least possible to meet like-minded individuals and exchange dismayed commentary on world events wilfully misrepresented by the traditional media. Now that Musk is Twitter’s CEO, even that degree of freedom is under threat. The internet which we thought at first might be a force for good is turning out to be a tool for mass surveillance and data collection for variously nefarious purposes, including the manipulation of public opinion. 1984, with its two-way telescreens, its repression of individual and sexual freedoms, its state-managed falsification of information and its daily Two Minutes Hate, seems ominously not far off.