Tag Archives: Laura Murray

Who authorised this ‘circumstantial and inferential’ attack on alleged Labour whistleblowers?

Keir Starmer (left) and his general secretary David Evans: was this decision their idea?

After successfully fending off a court bid to name officers believed to have leaked a controversial internal report, Labour has named and accused five ex-staffers as part of its defence against others who are suing the party over the link. Wait – what?

The internal report, The work of the Labour Party’s Governance and Legal Unit in relation to antisemitism, 2014 – 2019, was originally intended to be a submission from the Labour Party to the Equality and Human Rights Commission, which conducted an investigation into Labour anti-Semitism that concluded in October 2020, finding that the party was not institutionally anti-Semitic.

On legal advice, the report was not submitted to the EHRC – but it was instead leaked, in full, to the press and online, leading to court action by people named in the report.

This in turn led to two investigations by Labour – one by an independent external investigator and another by Martin Forde QC. Neither found evidence to prove that any of the five who have now been accused had anything to do with the leak. The Forde report has been delayed indefinitely after the Information Commissioner’s Office launched an investigation into the same leaks.

Labour’s latest move is beyond ridiculous. If This Writer understands the situation properly, Labour has already acknowledged to a court that there was no “smoking gun” evidence to prove who leaked the report, and the party’s solicitor stated that it “does not claim to know definitively and with absolute certainty the identity of the person(s) responsible”.

So why has it named Seumas Milne, Karie Murphy, Georgie Robertson, Harry Hayball and Laura Murray as being responsible for leaking the so-called “LabourLeaks” report?

According to solicitors Carter-Ruck, acting for the group, “To the extent that the Labour Party has explained its proposed action, it is clear that it will be naming the individuals in an attempt to deflect on to them its own liability in claims brought by a group of claimants who are suing the party over the leak as well as the party bringing a related claim direct against the five.”

On one level, this makes sense – because Keir Starmer and his general secretary David Evans have brought Labour to the brink of bankruptcy by losing a string of court cases related to the crusade against left-wing party members they have accused of anti-Semitism. Deflecting blame in the current case might seem a smart plan – right?

Except… if the five are able to employ super-expensive Carter-Ruck, then they’re not short of cash and are likely to get very high-quality advice. Not only will they “vigorously defend” themselves in court and seek full reimbursement of their costs, but according to “well-placed sources”

the five individuals are “considering bringing legal claims against the party over its victimisation of them and for breach of their confidentiality”.

In a statement, a spokesperson for the five said:

“The individuals entirely reject these baseless claims. They did not leak the report. They fully cooperated with the party’s investigation by an independent external investigator, and with
the inquiry led by Martin Forde QC. They understand that neither of those investigations concluded that they were responsible.

“The party has already acknowledged in court that it cannot be certain who leaked the report and that its “case” against them is circumstantial. But it is now trying to make them foot the bill for legal action brought against it.

“The party should be focussing on the deeply troubling evidence contained with the leaked report, rather than trying to wrongly scapegoat and victimise former staff who documented it, and who have not been accused by either of the independent investigations.”

The situation is particularly interesting to me because, when I was still a Labour member, an internal party report libellously accusing me of Holocaust denial was leaked to the press. When I took the party to court over its treatment of me, Labour’s representatives repeatedly asserted that they could not identify the officer responsible for the leak. I am agog to learn how the party linked these five to this leak when it couldn’t connect anybody with mine. Expedience?

And if you thought that was the punchline, think again:

Decisions on matters like this are so important that they should properly be submitted to a vote by the party’s governing body, the National Executive Committee. But here’s NEC member Mish Rahman:

I think we know who made this unilateral decision. It seems they had no authority to do so.

With such potential for disastrous consequences for Labour’s finances, isn’t this a good reason for disciplinary – and indeed even expulsion – procedures against the culprit(s)?

Finally, there’s the elephant in the room:

Lots of us – including Jon Trickett, who wrote Labour’s submission to the Forde Report and can see the way the wind is blowing. So he is considering some unilateral action of his own:

Oh, and former Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell – who was part of the Labour leadership at the time – agrees.

So there’s a fairly clear path forward for Labour:

Withdraw the claims against the “Carter-Ruck Five”, divulge who decided to make them and submit those people to disciplinary action/expulsion. Publish the Forde Report.

But…

I think we all know those are forlorn hopes.

Have YOU donated to my crowdfunding appeal, raising funds to fight false libel claims by TV celebrities who should know better? These court cases cost a lot of money so every penny will help ensure that wealth doesn’t beat justice.

https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/mike-sivier-libel-fight/

Vox Political needs your help!
If you want to support this site
(but don’t want to give your money to advertisers)
you can make a one-off donation here:

Donate Button with Credit Cards

Here are four ways to be sure you’re among the first to know what’s going on.

1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (in the left margin). You can then receive notifications of every new article that is posted here.

2) Follow VP on Twitter @VoxPolitical

3) Like the Facebook page at https://www.facebook.com/VoxPolitical/

Join the Vox Political Facebook page.

4) You could even make Vox Political your homepage at http://voxpoliticalonline.com

And do share with your family and friends – so they don’t miss out!

If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!

Buy Vox Political books so we can continue
fighting for the facts.

The Livingstone Presumption is now available
in either print or eBook format here:

HWG PrintHWG eBook

Health Warning: Government! is now available
in either print or eBook format here:

HWG PrintHWG eBook

The first collection, Strong Words and Hard Times,
is still available in either print or eBook format here:

SWAHTprint SWAHTeBook

Battle over democracy as Momentum prepares for 2017 conference

A murky horizon? Momentum members are among Jeremy Corbyn’s strongest supporters, but he risks losing them, opines The Graun. This Writer disagrees [Image: Filip Singer/EPA].

A murky horizon? Momentum members are among Jeremy Corbyn’s strongest supporters, but he risks losing them, opines The Graun. This Writer disagrees [Image: Filip Singer/EPA].

What a shame: Organisers of the Jeremy Corbyn-supporting organisation Momentum appear to be splitting, with each faction claiming the other is betraying democracy.

Focus of the split is Momentum founder Jon Lansman. One group says his plans for computerised, one-member-one-vote democracy feeding into a delegate-led debate is a “slap in the face” for democracy – the other touts it as the future of democracy.

The Guardian article quoted below focuses heavily on a blog by Laura Murray, a Lansman supporter – but blows its credibility by suggesting that a meeting of Momentum’s national committee on Saturday was “to decide whether to support the one-member-one-vote (OMOV) system favoured by Lansman, or a delegate-based system… Critics have claimed that a delegate-based system will mean that the hard left will be able to control Momentum’s future direction”.

In fact, the meeting was called to discuss arrangements for the organisation’s conference in February next year, when delegates will discuss broad political and campaigning priorities for the organisation and questions of strategy and tactics relating to its involvement in the Labour Party.

It seems members decided to support a procedure in which delegates debate and approve – or reject – motions submitted by Momentum’s constituent organisations, with an online forum for all members where motions can be discussed, amendments mooted and compositing processes arranged, and an online priorities ballot.

This was the controversial part.

Mr Lansman’s proposal was for his online, one-member-one-vote method to be used to propose motions and gather supporters for them – but also to whittle them down to the six most popular motions in each of three categories – purpose, ethics and structure (and a catch-all ‘other’ category for those that don’t fit in any of them).

Delegates would debate all six proposals in each category – and vote on them – but the final say would go to members, after the conference, who would vote on only three proposals in each category, using the digital OMOV method.

Here’s the catch, though: Only the top three proposals – one for each category – would be approved.

Momentum LGBT+ co-representative Josie Runswick had this to say about it, in her own blog:

“It represents a slap in the face to the membership. What it allows, at the end of a lengthy and complex process, is asking the membership to whittle nine potential policies down to three. Just three actions to take from a national conference and months of organising work.
“It is also a slap in the face to all of the local and regional groups which have been organising, building and campaigning for the last year. It affords them absolutely no real say in the agenda of conference, and doesn’t allow their conference delegates to do any more than reduce eighteen motions to nine.

“I could not see any positives in the specifics of the Lansman proposals, so I voted against them.

“It is worth noting that electronic OMOV is still used several times in the run-up to the conference, and it also worth noting that nothing prevents conference from agreeing to put proposals to an electronic OMOV ballot of the membership. I would be minded to do this myself on some major issues.”

Contrast this with Ms Murray’s comments, in her blog:

“People who have only recently flocked into the Labour Party from other left-wing parties seek to agitate against Jon Lansman, in the hope that they can take ownership of Momentum for themselves.

It is in the context of these bitter and hurt groups that we lost any proposal to use OMOV for elections — other than for those areas of the country which don’t have local Momentum groups — and lost the proposal to use MxV to propose and vote on motions.

“These groups are unified only by their opposition to Jon Lansman and their realisation that the existing structures and processes are those which benefit themselves and their style of politics.”

What do you think?

The Guardian‘s piece scaremongers shamelessly, suggesting that under this “Trotskyite” controlled Momentum, Jeremy Corbyn could lose the group’s support. It quotes Ms Murray’s claim that “Jeremy Corbyn will inevitably make one compromise or concession that isn’t ideologically pure enough for them, and they will abandon him and Labour altogether to turn Momentum into a rival leftwing party”.

Really?

No. Momentum was created to support Mr Corbyn and the new vigour he has brought to the politics of the Left.

This seems nothing more than bleating from those who themselves sought to control the organisation undemocratically and then accused those who foiled them of exactly the same thing.

Sharp divisions have emerged within Momentum, the grassroots organisation that supports Jeremy Corbyn, following reports of an attempted takeover by Trotskyist and factional groups, an executive committee member has claimed.

Momentum’s women’s officer has written a blog claiming that members of the Alliance for Workers’ Liberty and others are seeking to wrest control from its founder, Jon Lansman. Laura Murray, who is also a Labour shadow cabinet adviser, has claimed that ultimately, some activists will try to force Momentum to abandon Corbyn and turn to another leftwing organisation.

Source: Trotskyist factions seeking to take over Momentum, member claims | Politics | The Guardian

Join the Vox Political Facebook page.

If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!

Vox Political needs your help!
If you want to support this site
(but don’t want to give your money to advertisers)
you can make a one-off donation here:

Donate Button with Credit Cards

Buy Vox Political books so we can continue
fighting for the facts.

The Livingstone Presumption is now available
in either print or eBook format here:

HWG PrintHWG eBook

Health Warning: Government! is now available
in either print or eBook format here:

HWG PrintHWG eBook

The first collection, Strong Words and Hard Times,
is still available in either print or eBook format here:

SWAHTprint SWAHTeBook