Having been persuaded to enter the race for the job of General Secretary of the Labour Party, Sunday Momentum founder Jon Lansman announced his withdrawal.
Closing date for applications is March 13, Tuesday.
He took to Twitter posting "A further statement about the appointment of the @UKLabour general secretary:
While many people have applauded Jon Lansman for this decision others have been scathing. Kevin Maguire of the Daily Mirror claimed on Twitter Lansman was pulling out as he knew he would lose heavily.
But we believe it is mission accomplished and the race is now opened up rather than just out with Iain McNicol, in with Jennie Formby.
Remember there is no member voting on this. The Labour Party powers that be will decide because after all it is just a job application.
Good luck to all who apply.
Jon Lansman steps into General Secretary race
Who will replace Iain McNicol as party General Secretary?
One week ago the Labour Party's General Secretary Iain McNicol announced he was stepping down. In the week that has followed two people have thrown their hats in the ring. Both are from the left of the party.
First up was Unite's Jennie Formby who was quick to declare an interest.
Next was Jon Lansman, touted by the mainstream media as interested in the role from day one, he only declared his interest Thursday.
John took to social media too annouce he too was applying for this senior Labour Party role saying "There has been much speculation about the appointment of the @UKLabour General Secretary. Here is my statement:
Others may yet come forward to declare an interest but with the selection process being fast-tracked and expected to be completed in just three weeks they will have to be quick.
As a Jeremy Corbyn supporter this blogger wishes both candidates good luck. They both support Mr Corbyn.
Personally though at this stage she is supporting Jon Lansman.
However it is simply like any other job application and supporters preferences will not count. Party members will have no vote but, depending who is selected, they may have on such selections in the future.
If others from the middle or right of the party announce they are applying we will share their details too
The King is dead long live the King or will it be Queen?
Last week Labour Party General secretary Iain McNicol announced his intention to quit the role. Hopes of one member one vote resulting in a memebr's choice for replacement were quickly dashed. The party machinery and its main players will decide who takes over from a possible handful of wannabees.
The decision will be fast-tracked and the new General Secretary will be announed in around three-weeks time.
Tuesday Unite's Jennie Formby announced her intention to apply for the role
For immediate issue: Tuesday 27 February 2018
JENNIE FORMBY STATEMENT
I have today decided to apply for the post of General Secretary of the Labour Party. Before setting out my reasons for doing so let me pay tribute to the work done by Iain McNicol in that role and to join every Party member in thanking him for his service and wishing him well for the future.
Our Party is now united as it has not been for years under Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership. The General Secretary of the Party needs to be someone who can build on that unity to mobilise and organise the entire party and the wider labour movement behind a Labour victory at the next general election whenever this callous and crumbling government decides to call it.
Labour’s strength rests on three pillars – the support of millions of voters, an individual membership far larger than that in any other British political party, and our link with our affiliated trade unions. I believe I am well-placed to help our party build on all three.
My service as a party member for forty years, as a member of the National Executive Committee for the last seven, and as a senior official of my union in industrial, political and administrative posts has given me the breadth of experience to lead the whole party in meeting the challenges and seizing the opportunities ahead.
I will work with all parts of the movement to ensure that the Party democracy review empowers the party membership, opens up policy-making, and ensures democratic best-practice throughout. I will ensure our exciting new community organising initiative is developed to help entrench Labour in the communities we serve and win the seats we need at the next general election.
I stand for a tolerant and welcoming party, with no place for anti-Semitism, racism and misogyny or any form of abuse or intimidation; a party in which complaints are handled both fairly and speedily. I value the commitment and hard work of party staff and will ensure the whole party machine is working in support of our Leader and our policies, embracing the new campaigning tools and methods which we used to such effect in the 2017 election.
I would be proud to be the first woman to serve as Labour Party General Secretary in a generation and only the second ever. I have fought for gender equality – often the hard way – throughout my lifetime in the labour movement.
Labour has only one objective – to bring to Britain the socialist change it desperately needs. And it has only one means of delivering that – electoral victory at all levels, and above all in a General Election. As General Secretary, I will devote all my time and energy to ensuring that we grasp the historic opportunity before us.
February 27 2018
Note: To contact Jennie Formby, call Pauline Doyle on 07976 832 861
Friday February 23, 2018
Iain McNicol stands down as Labour Party General Secretary
Labour Party statement:
Iain McNicol has decided to stand down as General Secretary of the Labour Party to pursue new projects on behalf of the party and wider Labour movement. The officers of the Party will meet to decide the process for the election of a successor. To maintain stability, Iain will work with our NEC Officers to deliver a smooth and proper transition ensuring that the Labour Party remains on an election footing.
Jeremy Corbyn MP, Leader of the Labour Party, said:
“I would like to personally thank Iain McNicol for his long and dedicated service to the Labour Party as General Secretary. He has run our party’s organisation at a time of great change, including a near tripling of the membership, two general elections and the EU referendum.
“Iain has served the Labour Party and trade union movement in a wide range of roles throughout his career and is a credit to our movement. I am confident Iain will continue to play a major role in politics and our party, and will support our team inside and outside Parliament with his experience and skills.”
Iain McNicol said:
“It’s been an absolute honour and a privilege to serve as General Secretary of the Labour Party. I have now decided to move on to pursue new challenges in the service of the Labour Party and wider labour movement.
“I would like to thank our fantastic staff across the country for their brilliant work and support. A team who continuously go above and beyond to deliver for Labour. It has been a tumultuous seven years including; two general elections, a huge increase in our membership, Scottish and EU referendums.
“It is a hugely exciting time for the Labour Party after we achieved the biggest increase in our vote since 1945 at last year’s general election. I will continue to support Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership and will work closely with him and our whole parliamentary team to take Labour to victory at the next general election.”
Reblogged from Labour Press
There have been allegations that Iain McNicol and his election campaign team were far from even handed during the 2017 General Election campaign.
Was this simply mismanagement as some believed the hype that Jeremy Corbyn was unelectable or something more sinister?
Some seats classed as "safe", if there is such a thing these days, were widely supported while more marginal seats were left to get on with it.
Certainly at our last CLP meeting, when one person asked about campaigning in more marginal seats, they were given short shrift.
But look at the above received by a Labour Party member in Hackney South.
Now read what this person has shared with the JCEffect Monday:
the Skwawkbox has shared an article about not funding marginal seats. [see below]
The following has been sent to Labour Party Secretary Iain McNicol and others. It is fairly self-explanatory:
Dear Mr. McNicol,
I was pleased to finally hear from you, lifting my suspension from the Labour Party, but I have deep concerns about how my case was “investigated” and find it unacceptable that a warning will remain on my file indefinitely.
This whole process of suspending, expelling and disenfranchising members due to “alleged comment on social media” flies against all laws of natural justice.
1) Your suspension letter did not inform me of the right to appeal or the appeal process.
2) I was suspended on comments I allegedly made on social media. No details were given so I was unable to submit an appeal. I therefore submitted a notice of appeal and a request for further information about the allegations so that I could properly defend them. I heard nothing more until your letter of 31st October, lifting the suspension.
3) My alleged use of the word “traitor” in connection with MPs Hillary Benn and Jessie Phillips (I cannot find the original tweets) were said to have been made in June 2016, whereas I believe it was not decided by the NEC that this was a prohibited word until July 2016, therefore it is wholly wrong to apply this rule retrospectively. As far as categorising the use of this word as offensive goes, in the case of these two MPs their actions last summer – briefing negatively to the media about the elected leader (and in Phillips’ case also swearing publicly at colleagues) – appear to fit the dictionary description of the word “traitor.
4) Some high profile Labour members and MPs have been allowed to use offensive language on social media and in public, seemingly without incurring any sanctions (I have already given you details about this), therefore the rules appear to have been applied unequally.
5) To issue a formal NEC warning, which will be kept on my file indefinitely, is unjust and disturbs me greatly. This needs to be reviewed.
6) It was not explained what form the investigation took, which led to my being “unsuspended” and if there was an investigation, why was I not allowed to defend myself?
Your letter expresses the hope that this matter is now behind me.
Well, no, it is not.
There remain many unresolved issues and unanswered questions surrounding “this matter”. I was suspended from the Party, not allowed to participate in meetings, unable to become a GC delegate for my local ward, my vote was not counted and I still stand unjustly accused of alleged offenses, under the category of “racist, abusive or foul language or behaviour”.
I was extremely upset by being accused of behaviour which I find abhorrent and will not be able to put this matter behind me until I, and the thousands of others in this situation, receive some form of justice.
I would like:
· A full, independent inquiry into the actions of the NEC in suspending, expelling and disenfranchising thousands of members during the leadership election.
· An apology to all those members who were unjustly “purged” for flimsy reasons and on flimsy or false evidence and that the warning be removed from their files.
[ Thanks for sharing ]
Julie Davies wrote this to Iain McNicol:
Yesterday I was a delegate at the London Labour conference. Although I have been in the party for many years this was actually the first Party conference I have been sent to by my CLP.
I have attended NUT conference since 1997 and have served on the NEC of my union for eight years. During this time I was vice chair of its Organisation and Administration standing committee. The department serving the committee (headed for some years by Lucy Anderson) is responsible for organising annual conference and for the rules of the union. I have also been a delegate to the TUC conference.
I’m sorry to say I was profoundly shocked by yesterday’s London Labour conference. It was terribly disorganised, leaving it open to security breach, fraudulent voting and personation. Apart from the catering, every bit of it fell short of the standards I would have expected.
Confirmation that I was registered as a delegate arrived on November 7 containing just an agenda. The conference pack arrived by email at 1.00pm the day before the conference. It contained no standing orders or conference credential. We were sent candidates' information and three composited motions with no explanation about the way in which they were to be debated or whether they were open to amendment. (Were they? We tried to find out. Len Duvall didn’t know.)
Registration for the conference was shambolic. Business started forty five minutes late because there were not enough staff on the desk. Delegates and guests queued in the rain.
No checks were made on identity. Anybody could have walked in off the street and claimed a credential. There was no security over the issuing of ballot papers. These were piled up on the table in front of the queue and it would have been very easy to grab one, or even a handful, and vote. I was shocked by the potential security risks of the whole set up, throughout the day, too. Has the Party learned nothing from the death of Jo Cox?
There were five delegates from my CLP but it became apparent that only the first to arrive would be issued with a ballot paper. (This explained why it was that one of our local rightwingers was at the front of the queue at 7.30 in the morning, in the rain. Because why else would anybody do that? Honestly?) As it was, our delegation sat together and filled in the ballot with the names of the people nominated by the CLP, but the system was open to abuse. How many other delegations did what we did? How can the party be confident in the outcome of the election it ran yesterday? I’m certainly not. And if only one person votes, why send five people?
There were no standing orders. We were informed that there were some, but for some reason these would be sent to us after the conference. I am used to the first business of conference being the adoption of standing orders so that all those present know what to expect and how to engage.
If there is one place where Citrine rules should be followed, surely, it’s a Labour conference. The ‘debate' was little more than an open mike session. Two motions were debated at once. The chair varied the order of business without asking for a show of hands and the voting that did take place was desultory. It was unnecessary anyway. The three motions were so anodyne after compositing that they were barely worth voting for. It isn’t a debate if there are no amendments and nobody says a single word against. Surely we can do better than that if we’re serious about any of our conferences setting, or steering, Party policy? (I think I’ve just answered my own question, haven’t I?)
There was no real distinction between voting delegates and observers; I’m used to observers having different coloured cards and sitting separately in the hall but then I’m also used to voting that makes a difference and genuine debate.
There are a lot of new people in the party and our practices should be seen to be scrupulous, efficient, inclusive and democratic. We have the resources to organise events like this properly and we should use them.
I look forward to your response on the points I have made.
Jennie Formby: Labour's new general secretary