Bristol North West Constituency Labour Party Members and supporters newsletter September 2020

Many tributes have been paid to our friend and comrade Nina Franklin who died on 24th August. Nina was one of Bristol's leading trade unionists, serving as National President of the National Union of Teachers, and also a lifelong anti-racist and Labour activist. Only last October she organised what was to be the last of many trips to Palestine for local people to visit the occupied areas and meet people living there.

When we relaunched the Lockleaze Labour Party branch in February 2017, with a crowd of over 200 at Fairfield School to hear Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell, Nina was at the heart of the action, chairing the meeting, and building on the momentum to secure both a landslide Labour vote in Lockleaze and a victory for Darren Jones as Labour MP for Bristol North West in June of that year. She was delighted when the branch selected her to stand as our candidate in next year's City Council elections, and we are sorry we will not have the chance to campaign for her.

Lockleaze councillors Estella Tincknell and Gill Kirk paid tribute to Nina, saying

"Nina was a committed campaigner and activist and someone who loved and valued Lockleaze. Her commitment to fighting inequality wherever she found it was palpable and steadfast. She was always supportive of new and younger campaigners, and was well-known for her work in mentoring candidates.

She was also a real trooper. She was out on the doorstep at every election regardless of the weather or her own ill health, and brought good humour, commitment and sheer determination to everything she did. We shared many happy times with her on the campaign trail, and wish to record our thanks to her for everything she did."

Former councillor Harriet Bradley adds:

In October 2019 Nina initiated a tour to the West Bank organised by Travel2Palestine, for Labour councillors and activists. My husband and I went on the life-changing trip: life-changing in that it is one thing reading about oppression and apartheid, another thing seeing the walls, checkpoints, rifles and armaments. Nina was characteristically a wonderful guide and instructor. She had visited Palestine many times, and was greeted warmly by old friends. As well as seeing the horrors of life under occupation, we saw some of the accomplishments of the Palestinians. A highlight was a visit to a wonderful and beautifully appointed school for girls in Ramallah. We were met by an Education spokesman, the headmistress and teachers. We spoke to the children, who were so lively, friendly and told us of their ambitions to be doctors and lawyers. The school exemplified the liberating power of education which Nina so passionately believed in and fought for all her life. We laid a wreath on the Yasser Arafat memorial. The trip will remain deeply embedded in my memory, as will the wonderful times spent chatting with Nina and the group, sharing impressions and dreams. Nina was a real fighter and champion for the liberation of the Palestinian people, and that, too, will never be forgotten.

Harriet is standing next to Nina in this picture from last October’s visit to Palestine

Nina asked for any donations to be made to provide support for Palestinian people. Any donations to Medical Aid for Palestinians can be made at https://www.map.org.uk

Bristol North West CLP and the National Education Union will also be launching an appeal in Nina’s name for funds to build new classrooms for a school in South Hebron. Details will be circulated.

One of Nina’s last messages was a letter to Boris Johnson written from her hospital bed. After spending months trying to get a scan during the lockdown that could potentially have prolonged her life, Nina continued to fight in the hope that others wouldn’t find themselves in the situation in which she found herself. Nina wanted others to read this, not just on her own account, but on account of the many people who have been denied healthcare and suffered as a consequence.

Dear Prime Minister

I wanted you to know how your wrecking of the NHS and incomprehensible decisions over Covid have affected me and will lead to my premature death. I was a breast cancer patient 5 years ago and had just had the all clear. In January i had a chest xray which was clear. In March this year I became ill with a number of symptoms. Because of your covid rules I was unable to be seen face to face by my GP and there began a long period of bi weekly phone calls when I begged for some help. Hospital appointments with my breast surgeon and oncologist were also converted to telephone appointments with their registrars. Eventually two weeks ago I was offered a CT scan, the scan showed that my cancer has metastasised all over my body and I now have a terminal diagnosis of Stage 4. I have little prospect of living very long. A recent diagnosis of cellulitis has meant that I am now hospitalised. In a sweltering hospital room with no air conditioning and already soaking wet with sweat. I am not even comfortable. I hold you and your government responsible for this and my premature death. I am as much a statistic of Covid as someone who has had it.

I challenge you to spend some time in this hot room which is like being in a sauna and see how you would manage.

Nina Franklin The Department of Health replied to Nina’s letter a week after she died. Why we need a Green Economic Recovery

“The battle against climate change cannot wait for the next election”

Dan McTiernan, a young Labour member from Horfield branch, calls for action now

On April 4th 2020, Keir Starmer won a landslide majority as leader of the Labour Party. Many on the left accepted his socialist credentials while many on the right of the party envisioned him as the true ‘heir to Blair’. Regardless of what the selectorate made of him during the leadership election, recent talk of a ‘Green Economic Recovery’ is a clear indication of the path that the party shall be taking.

As Shadow Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, Ed Miliband has outlined the inevitable surge in unemployment that will take place once the Furlough scheme comes to an end. This is why Miliband has announced his desire to re-train young people into echo-friendly sectors. This so-called “zero-carbon army” would be paid to plant trees, insulate buildings and work on green tech in a state funded programme that would be undeniably similar to Roosevelt’s ‘Civilian Conservation Corps’ (CCC). This scheme was put in place in 1933 after the Great Depression to pay young men to conserve and protect natural resources. This policy was a major success both economically and environmentally. In regards to the environment, the CCC oversaw a great environmental rebirth by planting more than 3 billion trees. Economically speaking, the programme acted as a fiscal stimulus to a depressed economy and increased the employability of those who enrolled.

I believe that stressing the importance of environmental preservation is not only the right direction for the party to take on a moral basis but will result in Labour enhancing its electability. Thanks to the efforts of student protesters, the desire to protect the environment has gained popularity. This month, YouGov reported that 50% of people believe the government are doing a poor job in regards to the environment. This concern is something that has been frequently overlooked by the Conservative Party. This creates a gateway for the Labour Party to define itself by its struggle against our climate crisis. An electorate that accepts the science of climate change, accepts the dire consequences of negligence.

The popularity of green politics will be enhanced if it is promoted alongside economic competence. The key distinction that differentiates the ‘Green Economic Recovery’ from what was previously known as the ‘Green New Deal’ is the emphasis that is placed upon the economic benefits of pursuing eco-friendly policy. The public will be encouraged by a plan that would enhance their employability, especially if it coincides with environmental preservation. Through this shift, not only do we move away from the idea of a Labour Government threatening job security, but we can put forward a proposal that directly resonates with voters. While the Green New Deal’s labelling relied on nostalgia, the concept of a ‘recovery’ in both economic and environmental terms is modern and innovative. These considerations may be regarded as trivial by some, but the 2019 election was a clear sign that the party needs to be more aware of its image.

For many of us, the battle against climate change cannot wait for the next election. For us to see a genuine ecological revival, it is essential that Starmer leads an effective opposition. Despite an 80 seat majority, so far Sir Keir’s forensic style has resulted in several Tory ‘U-turns’ from free school meals to the NHS surcharge for migrant workers. It is evident through the Furlough scheme and Boris Johnson’s inability to say the word ‘austerity’ that the Tories are desperately trying to distance themselves from their monetarist past. This shift to Keynesian economics is something that the frontbench will be able to capitalize upon.

One of the many reasons I voted for Keir Starmer to be leader of the Labour Party was his clear mantra on environmental policy: “if it’s bad for the environment, it’s bad for the economy”. If Keir Starmer maintains his pursuit of policy that is both good for the economy and good the environment, then he will very easily find himself leading a credible Labour Party.

Dan McTiernan

Bristol Economy For All

A free online Community Wealth Building Event September 12 and 13 2020

Free tickets at: https:// www.headfirstbristol.co.uk/ #date=2020-09-12&event_id=62730 Optional donation - for free ticket please set Custom Donation to £0.00

Zoom links to follow

Session 1: What is Community Wealth Building? Sat 12th Sept 2020 2-4pm Free online

Traditional economic development practice and developer-led regeneration are failing to address the economic challenges of our time. Community wealth building is a new people-centred approach to local economic development, which redirects wealth back into the local economy, and places control and benefits into the hands of local people. Is this approach practicable and desirable for Bristol and other local authorities? What impact do years of austerity, and the post Covid-19 economic crisis have on our ability to do this? Panel: Neil McInroy (CLES National organisation for local economies), Joe Guinan (Democracy Collaborative), Malu Garcia (Bristol Inclusive Economy Unit), Jules Peck (Avon Mutual Bank) Bristol Deputy Mayor Asher Craig Session 2: “How To” Start a Co-operative Sun 13th Sept 2020 AM 10:30-12:30pm Free online

Practical session on how to get started for those interested in setting up a co-op or worker-led organisation in Bristol. Panel: Successful UK co-ops Equal Care Co-op (Social Care) and a local Bristol Co-operative will share their experience. Co-ops UK and the Council Co-op Innovation Network will guide us through the journey: • Recruiting Members • Market Analysis • Business Plan • Finance • Registering/Structuring your Co-op

Session 3: Bristol Economy For All Expert Session Sun 13th Sept 2020 PM 2-4pm Free online

A space for decision makers and policy developers to talk through the benefits and challenges of Community Wealth Building in Bristol. We will hear from those with experience of implementing key CWB principles in the UK. What has Bristol achieved and what are the next steps to progress CWB further? We will look at: • Community banks, credit unions, social investment • Assets and services working for the community – incorporate in decision-making • Support for local co-operatives and worker-led business to start up, grow and bid for anchor institution contracts • Anchor Institutions - progressive procurement • Local leadership to bring stakeholders together and drive strategy Panel: Julian Manley (UCLAN, Chair of the Preston Co-op Development Network), Sado Jirde, Black South West Network, Jules Peck (Avon Mutual Bank), Rob Logan (Bristol University), Bristol Mayor Marvin Rees or Deputy Mayor Craig Cheney (TBC)

The Co-op Party has published a new plan for economic recovery. Sue Milestone of Bristol North West CLP and Co-op Party writes:

“As we slowly emerge from the Covid-19 lockdown, we are at a crossroads. We can return to the unequal economy that characterised pre- Covid Britain, or we can create something better. The last few months have shown that we can respond to crisis with kindness, and communities – not corporations – have led the way. It's time we gave communities more ownership of the wider economy. By widening ownership, we can narrow inequality and create a new normal – one where you own your workplace, own your community and own the future.” https://party.coop/wp-content/blogs.dir/5/files/2020/06/Owning-the-Future-Draft-8.pdf BRISTOL DEFEND THE BDASC PO BOX 194 ASYLUM SEEKERS The Malcolm X CAMPAIGN Centre,

Between 2013 and 2019 approximately 19,000 refugees have been reported missing or dead when trying to come to Europe – many of them fleeing violence and unrest which is the result of past and present foreign policies of British governments. It is good to hear that Banksy is funding a migrant rescue boat in the Mediterranean, the “Louise Michel”.

BDASC has hundred of affiliated individuals and organisations. They recently sent this letter to Home Secretary Priti Patel. You can support the campaign by contacting them at the above address.

The tragic death of a 16 year old Sudanese boy this week highlights once again the lack of government compassion & the government’s denial of safe & legal routes to claim asylum in the UK. As Refugee Action have pointed out, there is no such thing as an ‘illegal’ or ‘bogus’ asylum seeker. Under international law, anyone has the right to apply for asylum in any country that has signed the 1951 Convention and to remain there until the authorities have assessed their claim. It is also recognised in the 1951 Convention that people fleeing persecution may have to use irregular means in order to escape and claim asylum in another country- there is no legal way to travel to the UK for the specific purpose of seeking asylum, as you very well know.

By definition therefore, no asylum seeker can be illegal because anyone arriving in any country can claim asylum and ask for their claim to be tested. Moreover, there is no requirement under international law that asylum must be sought in the first safe country that the person encounters. It is perfectly obvious and perfectly right that people who are more familiar with the English language and/ or who have family connections with the UK will want to come here, but even without these qualifications, they have a perfect right to have their asylum claim tested in the UK if they so choose. You are careful to make none of these facts clear to the general public and you therefore continue to encourage a hostile environment towards asylum seeking to develop.

The punitive actions of the UK government, including sending Royal Navy ships into the Channel for the express purpose of preventing small, flimsy, inflatable boats from reaching UK soil, can only be described as brutal & inhumane, acting against the most vulnerable of humanity, including children. People would not get on these boats unless they were desperate.

We urge you to stop spending taxpayer’s money on these brutal actions and instead concentrate on the difficult but necessary task of deciding how the far greater numbers of asylum seekers which will be coming to these shores once the climate catastrophe is more advanced can properly be welcomed and accommodated. CLP updates

Although Party meetings are still suspended, some members have met online by Zoom. We realise this does not work for all our members, and we hope to be able to resume meetings as soon as the public health crisis permits.

There are some important developments to report, and some future dates to note.

• Dispute over Metromayor candidate selection process

• The leaked report and the Forde Inquiry

• Panorama settlement: CLP Executive Committee objects to decision to spend £600,000 of Party funds and rejects instruction from Labour Party General Secretary David Evans not to discuss the matter

• Elections for Labour Party National Executive Committee

Dispute over West of England Metromayor candidate selection

In June 70 of our members attended an online meeting to nominate a candidate for next year’s WECA Metromayor election. Labour’s Lesley Mansell finished a close second in 2017.

We nominated Lesley and also Cllr. Helen Godwin. The other 8 CLPs in the WECA area also held nomination meetings, and the overall result of this process was to reduce the field from 13 candidates to 6.

These candidates were interviewed by a panel of 5 people picked by the South West Regional Office. The panel’s job was to draw up a final list of names to be put to a ballot of all members who have the final say on who the candidate is. The South West Regional Office wrote to all members after the interviews to say that all the candidates had performed well in the interviews, but the only names to appear on the ballot would be Dan Norris and Helen Godwin.

This decision caused outrage among all 9 CLPs, who wrote to Labour’s National Executive Committee to object to the exclusion of candidates who had been nominated, particularly Lesley Mansell and Mhairi Threlfall, both of whom had received more support that Norris and Godwin. The NEC passed the matter back to the a South West a Regional Office, who have simply confirmed their decision to stick by their original decision. This despite the fact that one of Sir Keir Starmer’s 10 pledges during the leadership election earlier this year was to “make the selections for Labour candidates more democratic and end NEC impositions of candidates."

Bristol North West CLP Executive has once again rejected this shortlist. We believe our members, not a tiny unrepresentative squad appointed by Regional Office should have the final decision on who our candidate should be.

The level of anger and degree of unity among ALL the CLPs in our area makes it difficult for the South West Regional Office to continue to ignore all of us. We continue to insist that it is a fundamental principle of Labour Party democracy that members have the right to choose who will represent them in all elections. Many of our members have already signed the letter below written by Ken Loach to the National Executive Committee. You can add your name at https://forms.gle/ fJRnt49A3y9VHwHt8

Letter from Ken Loach to Labour Party National Executive Committee

We are writing to express our disquiet at the way the shortlist for the Labour candidates for our Mayoral election has been prepared. This process has revealed serious shortcomings in the method of selection and the competence of those involved.

The mistakes are many. Here are four :

1 A clearly undemocratic choice.

CLPs went to great trouble to organise meetings to make nominations. It seems one candidate received far more votes than any other. Yet she was omitted from the shortlist.

What is the point of CLPs and other organisations making these nominations? Everyone who took part understood that their choice would count in the selection of the shortlist. Yet the majority decision of the members was ignored.

However you define a democratic process, this has failed the test.

2 The Regional Director’s extraordinary response.

The Regional Director was asked a number of questions about the selection committee’s process. His answers indicate both a disregard for legitimate concerns and plain stupidity. Here is but one example:

The Regional Director was asked if the Committee was provided with the information regarding the nominations for each candidate. He answered ‘There is no such *requirement* within the procedures for this information to be provided’ (our asterisks). What? Each CLP went to great lengths to nominate a candidate and the official didn’t think he should inform the Committee of the results? Is he serious? He presumably thinks these nominations have no importance and decided to keep the information to himself. But it gets worse. The Regional Director goes on to say: ‘Had such a request been received, either from the Chair or any other members of the Selection Committee, it would of course have been provided. *There was no such request*’ (our asterisks). So not a single person on this Committee thought that party members’ choices were worth knowing? The Committee consciously chose to remain in ignorance? It is hard not to see this as extraordinarily arrogant.

3 A lack of transparency.

As party members, we knew nothing of this refusal to consider our nominations. A group of outsiders, who were chosen either by an unaccountable official or by an opaque group within the NEC, took a decision which was unexplained and which overrode the democratic votes of many party members. This is unacceptable.

4 The effect on Labour’s chances in the Mayoral election.

Members are understandably alienated by this whole sorry affair. There will be little enthusiasm for working for a candidate they have not chosen. They suspect factionalism and behind the scenes manipulation. Why should members spend their time and energy for a party organisation that sees their opinions as worthless?

How is the situation to be rescued? Those responsible for this debacle show no sign that they understand the seriousness of their mistake or the gravity of their failure.

First, we need the present shortlist to be rescinded and a new, longer shortlist with the candidates favoured by party members to be included.

Then the Regional Director, the Chair and members of the Selection Committee should present themselves to the relevant CLPs and other organisations and account for their behaviour. They should expect to attend several such meetings.

The leadership claims to support transparency, openness and party democracy. They must therefore ensure the above changes take place. Paid officials and those in positions of responsibility need to remember they are there to serve party members and not treat them with disdain. In this instance they have manifestly failed. The leaked report and the Forde Inquiry

In April, a Labour Party report on the handling of complaints about antisemitism was published. The 860 page report went well beyond the question of antisemitism and gave shocking details of attempts by Labour Party officials to sabotage Labour’s 2017 General Election campaign. Typical of the disclosures was an exchange of messages between some paid officials as results of the election came in on election night. They could not hide their disappointment that Labour had deprived the Tories of their majority in Parliament.

Oh no

Everyone needs to smile

I’m going into room of death

Everyone needs to be very upbeat

Its hard but yes

I’m not in smiling and mixing and doing the 2nd floor.

Everyone else needs to do the same. It is going to be a long night.

For more about this see https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/opendemocracyuk/i-saw-inside-how- labour-staff-worked-prevent-labour-government

In June, Sir Keir Starmer set up an inquiry headed by Martin Forde QC into the contents of the report, and Bristol North West CLP has made the submission to that inquiry.

Submission from Bristol North West CLP to the Forde Inquiry Panel

Bristol North West constituency is one of the 94 seats lost by Labour in the 2010 General Election. It is also one of the 36 seats gained by Labour in 2017, and held by Labour in 2019. Like most Constituency Labour Parties, Bristol North West had a big increase in its membership in the period following the 2015 election defeat. The CLP currently has about 1300 members. Bristol North West CLP nominated Jeremy Corbyn as Labour Party leader in both 2015 and 2016.

We welcome this opportunity to make a submission to the Forde Inquiry Panel appointed by the Labour Party National Executive Committee “to undertake an independent investigation into the circumstances and contents of the report entitled The work of the Labour Party’s Governance and Legal Unit in relation to antisemitism, 2014-2019 (the ‘leaked Report’). The main purpose of the submission is to show how the circumstances and contents set out in the leaked report affected our CLP. We make a number of suggestions for changes to the Party’s rules and practices that we believe would help us to mitigate the damage to the Party caused by the events described in the leaked report. The submission has the support of Bristol North West CLP Executive Committee.

General Election campaign 2017

Bristol North West CLP went into the 2017 General Election with very little money, and no expectation from regional or national Party staff that we would win. We were given no resources by the South West regional office. They told us we had no chance of winning, and even our candidate appeared to accept that.

The CLP rejected this negative (and inaccurate) view of our chances of winning. We knew about the factionalism that developed inside the Party, particularly the Parliamentary Labour Party, after 2015. The membership had elected, and re-elected a Leader who was openly rejected by a majority of the Parliamentary Labour Party. Our members, most of them newly joined, ignored this and campaigned for a Labour victory. There was no appetite for factionalism among the vast majority of our members because we wanted the Tories out.

Our discipline and confidence was in sharp contrast to the negative messages coming from the South West Regional Labour Party office in particular. As the campaign progressed it was clear to us that we had a very good chance of winning. We ignored the regional office and we delivered an election victory. We were relieved that we had made a significant contribution to Labour’s recovery, led by its new mass membership, after a long period of decline at the three previous elections.

In its discussion of the election result the CLP agreed unanimously that the manifesto, had been popular and was the main reason for our victory. We do not know if the negative attitude and lack of support from the South West Regional office was due to factionalism or incompetence or both, but we do want a Regional Party office that is competent, supportive and untainted by any suspicion of factionalism. That was not the case in 2017, and in our view it is still not the case. One thing we are certain of is that if we had listened to the Regional Office, Bristol North West would still have a Tory MP. We want Labour Party staff who are supportive, helpful and who work for the CLPs rather than to their own factionalist agendas.

We call on the Panel to recommend changes to the party’s regional structure, in particular the election of senior paid regional staff, that will prevent the party’s resources being used to undermine rather than support the campaigning efforts of CLPs. We submit this account of our 2017 campaign because the ‘leaked report’ published in April 2020 has caused outrage among our members. While we were out on the streets and on the phones winning support for Labour, others in the party were, if the contents of the leaked report are to be believed, trying to prevent a Labour victory.

The evidence in the leaked report of paid Labour Party staff actively engaged in a campaign to undermine the Party Leader and sabotage the chances of a Labour victory has replaced the elation of 2017 with anger and frustration.

Looking back on the 2017 election in the light of the leaked report, our members want to know why their hard work to get a Labour MP elected was being undermined by paid Party staff and others. Members and supporters, many with limited spare cash, donated what they could to the Party in response to its many requests for funding. They did this because they shared the ambitions of the Party manifesto and knew if Labour won it would bring about a fairer society for all. We are relying on the Forde enquiry to present a full and honest picture of what went wrong. Specifically, we want an answer to this question:

“What was the point of our campaign if those whose job it was to support our efforts were, in fact, doing all they could to prevent a Labour victory ? The outcome of the 2017 election was extremely close, with only a couple of thousand votes preventing Labour from being able to form a government.”

We demand to know the full extent of the sabotage perpetrated by paid staff, MPs and other public representatives and party office holders in the 2017 election and call on the Panel to publish all the evidence it receives, including the so-called leaked report, and to recommend action to prevent any repeat of this shameful episode in the Party’s history.

Racism

The leaked report is concerned with the response of the party’s Governance and Legal Unit in relation to anti-semitism. Bristol North West CLP has not seen anti-semitism as a particular problem within the Party.

Media coverage in the period covered by the leaked report suggesting that the Labour Party was ‘riddled with anti-semitism’ mystified most of our members. It made little sense to us. We reject the claim that anti-semitism is a more serious problem in the Labour Party than in any other part of society. In fact we believe it is a smaller problem - one which must of course be dealt with on the few occasions that it arises. After all, like the vast majority of Party members we joined the Party to fight all forms of inequality, including racism. The only time that the issue has been discussed in our CLP was in February 2018, when one of our members accused three members of the CLP Executive of being anti-Semitic. He made the accusation during an all member CLP meeting, and tweeted it from the meeting, adding a photograph of members who were present. The accusations were baseless, and appeared to be motivated more by factionalist manoeuvres inside the Parliamentary Labour Party than anything that had occurred in our CLP.

While it is entirely legitimate for any member to raise concerns about antisemitism, and they should not be criticised for doing so, false accusations are dangerous not only because they give the impression that the Labour Party is ‘riddled with antisemitism’ but also because they weaken the Party’s ability to recognise and fight genuine cases of antisemitism when they do arise.

In this particular case, Bristol North West CLP was shocked by the fact that a member had made statements about one of our meetings on social media while the meeting was still taking place. Even worse, the statements included photographs of other members in the meeting without their consent.

The General Secretary is quoted in the leaked report (p585) as saying - a few days after her appointment in April 2018 that

“singling out particular individuals or particular organisations to attack over the issue of antisemitism is unhelpful, as it can often encourage a toxic manner of debate online which can sometimes stray into abusive conduct.”

The CLP saw the use of social media by one of its members to violate the privacy rights of all other members as an example of toxic and abusive conduct. We amended our standing orders to prohibit any future violation of the privacy rights of our members.

We call on the Panel to recommend changes to Party rules that prevent the publication of photographs of Party meetings and members without their consent.

The report provides clear evidence that a group of disaffected staff members working in the Governance and Legal Unit deliberately delayed processing complaints about anti-Semitic behaviour and activities by a very small number of Party members. They did this in order to embarrass and undermine Jeremy Corbyn because they were opposed to the direction of the Party under his leadership.

The Party should deal with the small number of documented examples of antisemitism among Party members through its disciplinary processes. The leaked report shows, however, that the Governance and Legal Unit - whose job it was to process complaints - was captured by a faction opposed to Jeremy Corbyn who used their positions to undermine the leader of the Party and thereby weaken Labour’s election campaign. We were disappointed that the Party leadership did not do more to refute the claim that the Party was ‘riddled with antisemitism’ when it clearly was not. We believe that the Party should have dealt more effectively with those members of staff who were seeking to undermine its prospects of victory in 2017.

The use of false accusations of racism as a weapon in factionalised disputes is a very dangerous game. We were therefore disturbed by the recent sacking of Rebecca Long-Bailey for retweeting a newspaper interview with Maxine Peake. In our view this act was definitely not a racist act, and its use as an excuse to attack a political opponent shows that the Party has not learned the lessons of the recent past.

We call on the Panel to make it clear that antisemitism is not now, nor was it under the leadership of Jeremy Corbyn, a more significant problem inside the Labour Party than anywhere else in the U.K.

We are disappointed that the libel action brought by former members of staff and a BBC reporter has been settled at a reported cost to the Party of at least £600,000, even though the Party was advised that it could successfully defend itself against the action. We have asked for details of who made this decision and on what grounds, but have not yet received a reply. We have had many angry messages from our members who do not approve of this misuse of Party funds, or of the credibility it gives to the lie that antisemitism is a serious problem in the Labour Party. We agreed the following statement at our meeting on 6th August:

Bristol North West CLP is disappointed by the decision to settle the court action brought by six former members of Labour Party staff and a BBC reporter.

The Party was advised that it would successfully defend itself against the action.

The settlement not only wastes at least £600,000 of Party funds - funds donated by often hard pressed members - it also gives credibility to the lie peddled by the Daily Mail and others that the Labour Party is “riddled with antisemitism”.

We demand a full explanation from the General Secretary of who made the decision, to settle action and make the payments , and on what grounds.

Until we receive an explanation that is acceptable to our members, and unless we hear a clear statement from the Party Leader that the Labour Party is not now, and was not under the leadership of Jeremy Corbyn any more anti Semitic than any other section of British society, we advise our members to stop making donations (other than membership fees) to the Labour Party. We call on our members to continue making donations to the CLP Covid-19 Solidarity Appeal, which has so far raised £1700 to support local food projects. We are unconditionally opposed to all forms of racism. We are disgusted with the conduct of the disaffected staff of the Party’s Governance and Legal Unit as revealed in the leaked report. This applies equally to their cynical handling of cases of antisemitism and to the racist abuse of Diane Abbott and other black MPs (pp 42-3 of the leaked report). There is no room for racists in our Party.

We call for the disbanding of the current Governance and Legal Unit and its replacement by a new unit to that is open to scrutiny by the whole Party. This is to make sure that this key component in the party’s structure can not be captured by factional interests as it was in the period from 2014.

Panorama settlement: CLP Executive Committee objects £600,000 payout from Party funds and rejects instruction from Labour Party General Secretary David Evans not to discuss the matter

All CLPs have received the following instruction from David Evans. Bristol North West CLP Executive Committee has rejected this instruction not to discuss the decision to spend £600000 of Party funds to settle a court case brought against the Party by former Labour Party staff members and a BBC journalist. The Party was advised that it would win the case. We have objected to this decision, and we also insist that the decision to spend this £600000 was not approved by the national Executive Committee and that the General Secretary has exceeded his responsibilities in telling local parties what they can and cannot discuss.

Letter from David Evans to CLPs

The Labour Party recently agreed a settlement with seven former members of staff who appeared on an edition of the BBC’s Panorama programme, as well as with the journalist who hosted that programme. Those settlements included an unreserved apology and a withdrawal of the allegations previously made by the Party about those individuals. The withdrawal and apology are binding on the Party and any motions which seek to undermine or contradict them will create a risk of further legal proceedings for both the national party and local parties. As such, motions relating to these settlements and the circumstances behind them are not competent business for discussion by local parties. CLP officers have an important responsibility to ensure that they and other members conduct themselves in a respectful and comradely manner. We therefore take this opportunity to reiterate to local Labour Parties and officers that they should be aware of the potential liabilities to them should the allegations that have now been withdrawn by the national Party be repeated. Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) report On Monday 13 July 2020 the Party announced that it had received the EHRC’s draft report into allegations of antisemitism in the Labour Party. This draft report has been provided to the Party by the EHRC on a confidential basis as part of its investigation. When we are able to provide more information about the EHRC’s report we will do so. Until that time speculation as to the contents of the report is not helpful. It is therefore not competent business for CLPs to discuss. IHRA definition of antisemitism We are aware that some CLPs and branches have had motions tabled to “repudiate” the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism. The IHRA definition of antisemitism and its examples was properly adopted by the Labour Party in September 2018. CLPs and branches have no powers to overturn this decision. Furthermore, such motions undermine the Labour Party’s ability to tackle racism. Any such motions are therefore not competent business for CLPs or branches. As per the previous General Secretary’s instruction, any discussion about ongoing disciplinary cases remains prohibited.

Thanks, David Evans General Secretary

Elections to Labour Party National Executive Committee

CLPs and individual members are starting the process of electing members to the National Executive Committee. Labour’s annual conference is the sovereign body of the party, but the role of the NEC is to make decisions between conferences. With the cancellation of this years annual conference, the make up of the NEC is more important than usual. The following positions are up for election:

CLP representatives 9 positons Disabled Members representative 1 position Treasurer 1 position The first stage of the process is for individuals to put their names forward. This stage is complete and you can see a full list of candidates and their statements at

The next stage is for CLPs and affiliates to nominate candidates from the lists. This is to allow CLPs to discuss the merits of the candidates.

Bristol North West CLP will hold its online nomination meeting on Thursday 17th September 8pm. You will receive a notice of that meeting with details of how you can put forward names of candidates you want the CLP to nominate. If we receive more names than the number of positions open, we will hold a vote at the online meeting.

Labour Connected

With annual conference cancelled, Labour Connected is an online event taking place from 20 - 22 September, with Women Connected on 19 September. You can register for this at https://login.labevents.org/Register.aspx? utm_source=bsd&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=connected2020&source=20200903_conne cted2020&subsource=bsd_email