You are here: Home » Comment »

The choice for Progress

June 26, 2012 12:13 pm

Author:

Tags:

Share this Article

You may have read some commentary recently about a dastardly GMB plot to strip members of Progress, a faction operating within the Labour Party, of their party membership.

Despite all the bluster, one thing is clear: there is no such move to expel anyone from the party. GMB members certainly have expressed their displeasure at Progress, in the context of a motion passed at GMB Congress. That motion didn’t call for the organisation to be banned, but it did raise concerns over its sources of funding, its involvement in internal Labour Party decision-making, and its efforts to undermine Labour’s Leader and candidates.

Proper scrutiny of the faction is long overdue. Members of the faction can’t deny GMB’s claims that Progress is resourced to the tune of a quarter of a million pounds a year – far more than any other pressure group within the party. Nor can they deny that this is in large part thanks to Lord Sainsbury, a wealthy backer who chose to stop his funding to the Labour Party upon Ed Miliband’s election as Leader, and of course to the group’s corporate sponsors.

So what’s worrying isn’t just the fact that the group promotes New Labour policies and seeks to influence selections for parliamentary candidates, NEC elections and other decisions made within the party. It’s the fact that it is sponsored by interests outside of the party to do all this. Those Progress members who have called for the unions’ Labour Party funding to be decoupled from policy influence, might well want to take a hard look at their own organisation. As ASLEF’s National Organiser has asked, “Progress gets millions from people who don’t give money to Labour – why?”

Many of these reservations could easily be rebutted if Progress was affiliated to the party, or if it was an organisation run by and for Labour members, with a democratic and transparent structure. Unlike other pressure groups within the party, it shows no interest in either of these. That gives it the freedom to work against the Labour Party when its own interests, or those of its sponsors, dictate. For one example, GMB’s resolution raises concerns that prominent Progress members have briefed against the party leader; the faction’s response states merely that there is “no evidence” for this, whilst falling well short of a denial.

GMB members are right to call for an investigation into all of this.

A few Progress partisans have attempted to explain all this controversy away as the actions of a fringe minority within GMB. That’s not going to fly. Like any motion to GMB Congress, the motion on Progress was submitted democratically by a branch – not by an individual, despite misguided criticism on these pages of the delegate who moved the motion. Before Congress even began, it was scrutinised by the union’s Central Executive Council and by the Regional delegation. It breezed through all these hoops. When the motion on Progress reached GMB Congress, not a single delegate opposed it, or even voted against it. Other motions this year were not given such an easy ride.

And whilst GMB members were amongst the first to express their concerns on Progress, this certainly isn’t some lone struggle waged by GMB against Progress. Yorkshire TUC and UCATT had already passed similar motions, whilst ASLEF and Unison’s Dave Prentis have since voiced their support. Others will no doubt follow.

Perhaps we shouldn’t be surprised that members of Progress have so badly misjudged trade union activists. Some members of both GMB and Progress have recently crawled out of the woodwork to plead, ‘where does this leave me?’ They might well ask themselves why not a one of them was represented at Congress. The group’s success in swaying internal Labour Party decisions has never been based on any popular support across the party or wider labour movement. That is no doubt why the Leader of the Labour Party felt able to declare New Labour dead back in 2010. Perhaps it also explains why Progress needs so many external resources to achieve its aims.

Progress is unlike any other part of our movement. It wants to be involved in the party’s internal decision-making, but somehow also to accept funding and direction from outside the party. It wants to be seen as a movement of Labour members, but somehow not to be run by or for those members. To its own advantage, it has managed to be two conflicting things at the same time, a sort of impossible Socialist-Society-cum-private-sector-think-tank. But now, Schrödinger’s box is being opened. Whether it likes it or not, Progress has questions to answer, and a stark choice to make about its future.

Related posts:

  1. The GMB and Progress – what happened, and what might happen next?
  2. Adonis unveiled as new Progress Chair
  3. Progress respond to GMB motion
  4. In defence of Progress
  5. Progress and the GMB should be looking for ways to work together
  • treborc

    To be honest  a lot of people are going to need to grow up, here we go again and sadly the Tories are laughing all the way to the next election.

    The real battle lines are now the GMB and Progress and not a single person has asked the question why are twenty NHS hospitals about to go  out of business.

    This morning at 6am I listened to a labour ex Minister drone on about care in the community, you do not need so many hospitals and yes PFI  might have something to do with the hospital  going bust.

    Question if we did not need so many hospitals why did labour build them, was it just to keep unemployment low while they were in power, and then the price or the cost of PFI becomes to much for the NHS you just close them down and drone on about  the care in the community taking the strain, because care in the community is care workers trying to look after dozens of people on the min wage.

    What do we have here, Progress are talking over, the left needs to wake up and Miliband said new Labour is dead, unless people wake up it will be Labour that again will spend years in the wilderness looking for another Blair, or saviour.

    • Forlornehope

      “why are twenty NHS hospitals about to go  out of business”
      Because of the half-arsed PFI schemes put in place by the last government. 

      • treborc

         I totally agree , so what again are labour speaking about left and right. Progress and the GMB, it will be sorted at conference one way or the other.

  • 35theydon

    Utter rubbish. Why GMB started this nonsense is beyond me.  WE should be getting round a table to collectively plan our policies not pointing fingers.  This does not play well with the public and is a gift to the Tories and thier Fib Dem colleagues.   Does GMB think that Ed is going to take sides on this issue.  Of course he is not.  He wants, like most sensible people a united Labour Party that has policies that are fit for purpose to win the next election. 

    • Daniel Speight

       And yet just a few months ago the Progress knives were sticking in Ed Miliband’s back. I guess, as they say, what goes around comes around.

      • http://twitter.com/garypepworth Gary Pepworth

        Thank God the self styled LRC never criticised Tony Blair when he was PM, that the LRC don’t try and influence policy, NEC elections and selections; that organisations such as Compass that has members who aren’t members of the Labour Party don’t try to influence policy and that affiliated TUs with members from Trotskyist parties don’t try and influence party policy and selections otherwise the author of this article and his cheerleaders could be accused of stinking hypocrisy.

        As an aside, it isn’t so much the GMBs daft motion it was the comments their Gen Sec said afterwards that showed  true colours. Funny how these weren’t referenced in the article.

        • http://twitter.com/robertsjonathan Jonathan Roberts

          Thank God the LRC doesn’t take affiliation money from the New Communist Party of Britain…oh…wait…

          • http://twitter.com/garypepworth Gary Pepworth

            I thought you were trolling, but no there it is on their website. Affiliated to the Labour Representation Committee are, inter alia, the Stalinist New Communist Party of Britain, the Trotskyist Alliance for Worker’s Liberty, Communist Students, the Trotskyist Socialist Appeal and others. 
            http://www.l-r-c.org.uk/about/affiliates

            Funny how the only ‘faction’ which Kieron thinks requires proper scrutiny is the one comprised solely of Labour Party members.

          • http://twitter.com/Lacky89 Kris

            Disappointing to see a fellow South Gloucestershire Labour member react in such an OTT way to a fairly moderate article.

            The worst thing about all this Progress malarkey is that their ultras get to act as some persecuted minority when their members absolutely dominate the shadow cabinet.

            You’re also making the LRC sound way cooler and more powerful than it actually is.

          • http://twitter.com/garypepworth Gary Pepworth

            Not sure that where I live has any relevance to  your sense of disappointment.
            The use of pejorative language and name calling does not a moderate article make. In what way is it OTT to point out some fundamental inconsistencies  in the approach to Progress, open only to Labour Party members, and other organisations populated by Stalinist and Trotskyist parties?

            On Twitter the author has commented on the prospect of Labour Party members having to ‘renounce’ their membership of Progress. If people are going to use Stalinist language  against people like me then I have every right to be concerned.

            I made a factual reference to those who affiliate to the LRC.  Not sure that there is anything cool about them.

          • http://twitter.com/Lacky89 Kris

            Well considering we have a couple of South Glos cllrs who are LRC members and just want more socialist policies within the Labour party it has every relevance to my disappointment as you’re making the organisation out to be some kind of undemocratic communist insurgency.

            It is also my understanding that you can’t actually be a ‘member’ of Progress but rather you subscribe to the magazine and they send you a few emails about events now and again?

            Also, say what you want about the AWL and Socialist Appeal but they assert that working class people and non-affiliated trade unions should get behind Labour rather than some other vehicle.

          • Duncan

            The first few lines on the back of my LRC membership card reads “The LRC is an open, democratic and socialist organisation committed to the election of a Labour Government…”

            The membership rules are:

            “Membership is open both the Labour Party and non-Labour Party members. However, you cannot be a member of a party that stands candidates against the Labour Party.”

            I think this is approximately the same as the Fabian Society’s membership rules, unsure about Progress.  I understand Compass have now opened their membership up to all.

            Please let’s avoid any silliness over this – after all, I am unaware of any organisational attacks on Progress from the LRC. 
             

          • http://twitter.com/garypepworth Gary Pepworth

            Why would the Trotskyists and Stalinist parties  want to stand against Labour when they can influence from within?

            Unaware of any attacks from the LRC? LOL.

          • johnp Reid

            You can be in the Libdems and still be a fabian as were Shirley Williams and Bill Rodgers

          • http://twitter.com/robertsjonathan Jonathan Roberts

            So you don’t see any issue with LRC taking the coin of communist movements?

          • Duncan

            I doubt there’s an awful lot of “coin” involved, to be honest.

            I’m  a non-sectarian socialist.  What’s in a name?  I don’t think any of those organisations actually run authoritarian regimes, unlike the Azerbaijan government that has sponsored Progress…  Not that I want to get into any of this, as I am perfectly happy for Progress to go about its work.

        • Daniel Speight

           You have to be prepared to take it if you are going to dish it out. So what are Progress complaining about. Come out into the open and fight your corner, but don’t hide behind a strange company organization and say it’s just a magazine. As someone else said a little sunlight usually helps.

    • AlanGiles

      When many of us – left and right – complained about New Labour’s fetish for CCTV and the right to snoop on our personal emails &c., the then Home Secretary (Reid or Blunkett – can’t remember which as they were like Tweedledum and Tweedledee anyway) and Jack Straw parroted the phrase:

      “If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear”

      Do not Progress members and supporters feel the same way about any investigation? If they have done nothing wrong, or unseemly, why the hysterical complaints?.

      • johnp Reid

        Alan it’s the slanderous accusation, that progress are a party within a party yet unlike militant they don’t put up members or use trot methods to over run political meetings and put their way

        • AlanGiles

          There you go again Mr Reid. Anybody who isn’t right wing is, ipso facto a “Trot” (it is a capital T  by the way). I am getting increasingly tired and bored with the shrill hysterics coming from the right of the party.
          First off, if anybody has said anything slanderous, slander and libel are offences in this country, so they could  seek their remedies in the courts if they feel they have been wronged.

          That out of the way, Surely if Progress have nothing to worry about they would explain how their officers are elected,  for example?. Who decided Twigg would be the honouary president?. (I really would love to know that)

          To be frank, one of the reasons I am wary of Progress is because of the record and reputation of some of it’s leading members – Jacqui Smith, Liam Byrne, James Purnell, David Miliband et al  were heavily implicated in the expenses scandal. I strongly suspecty Smith and Purnell will use Progress as a means of returning to Westminster.

          I am a great believer in absolute integrity being a pre-requisite of public life.

          Progress for me as an organisation is tainted, not so much by the fact that it is right wing, but that I do not trust the integrity of many of those involved in it.

        • John Dore

          John,

          You see the same nasty boy tactics from the left wingers in the comments, trying to drown out views that they dont like.

          • AlanGiles

            To use your favourite word – crap.

            Mr Reid is  gamely fighting his corner and implying that anyone who doesn’t support Progress is – to use your word again “nasty”.

            For a man who frequently uses the word “nasty” against others, it is clear you do  not have any self-awareness. Many of your jibes are “nasty” indeed”.

            I have suggested not banning Progress but that Progress should be transparent and answer questions about who elects their officers, why their supporters, when all else fails, claims it is merely “a magazine”

            I suspect these questions will continue to be posed until Progress deign to answer them

          • John Dore

            Alan, lets  be clear. I was talking to John and not you. I have no respect for you whatsoever and never will have for someone so factional. So please, don’t bother to engage me.

          • AlanGiles

            Dore you blanketted all those who want Progress to answer questions about their methods of electing officers etc as  “You see the same nasty boy tactics from the left wingers in the comments”

            You might have been talking to Mr Reid, but everyone can read your thoughts (such as they are) and are entitled to comment on them

  • johnp Reid

     It wants to be involved in the party’s internal decision-making, it has m.p.s write for it who obvious have influence when they speak their opinions and it recommends people for the NEC, as do newspapers like the daily mirror, but I can’t see how you make the calim it wants to influence policy ,while beign funded by non members, more than anyone else.

  • http://www.facebook.com/richardlane Richard Lane

    “Members of the faction can’t deny GMB’s claims that Progress is resourced to the tune of a quarter of a million pounds a year – far more than any other pressure group within the party”.  

    The Fabian Society, a think tank affiliated with the Labour Party, declared an annual income for the year ending 30 June 2011 of £635,581. Considerably more funding than Progress has available. 

    • http://twitter.com/c_quigley Christine Quigley

       To be fair, the Fabians are a socialist society affiliated to the Labour Party, while Progress is not affiliated in the same way. As such, they have a formal role within the party.

      • http://www.facebook.com/richardlane Richard Lane

        True, but you don’t have to be a member of the Labour Party to be a member of the Fabian Society (and thus influence its decision making).

        Additionally, the majority of the funding the Fabian Society receives comes not from its members but from its partners – either for research or events – who equally do not have to be supportive of the Labour Party. 

        I am certainly not criticising this model as I think it allows the Fabians to platform a wide variety of speakers and create a vibrant debate within the party. I just think Progress is being targeted for practices that are common amongst all think tanks. 

        • http://kieronam.net/ Kieron

          Christine is right, the Fabians are formally affiliated and they are run democratically and transparently (as you know better than most, Richard). “The society is alone among think tanks in being a democratically-constituted membership organisation, ” as it says on its website. That’s no doubt why its politics are less extreme and its behaviour less factional than those of Progress.

          Nor are the Fabians involved within the party in anything like the same way as Progress in internal party decisions. It certainly participates via the SocSoc structure, which is a positive thing (and is also democratic and transparent), but doesn’t appear to overstep that.
          Does the Fabian exec feel that its ‘think tank,’ ‘critical friend’ approach means it should stand apart from the ins and outs of internal party decisions such as selections? If so, why shouldn’t Progress take a similar approach? As I said in my article, if it did, it wouldn’t be in such a vulnerable position now. Progress has a choice to make about what kind of organisation it wants to be, and it seems to me that the Fabians have already made a clear choice on that.

          • http://www.facebook.com/richardlane Richard Lane

            My initial point was simply to point out that your assertion that Progress receives considerably more funding than similar groups is plainly untrue. 

            The reason that the Fabian Society does not involve itself in ‘the ins and outs of internal party decisions such as selections’ is because unlike other groups the Fabian Society does not take a collective position on any issue. That is a unique attribute for the Fabians but does not mean other organisations should be bound by a similar rule.

            Additionally, unlike groups such as the Fabians and Compass (a group which receives considerable funding from non-Labour members and has the explicit aim of creating a ‘transformed Labour Party’), all Progress members are Labour Party members.

          • http://kieronam.net/ Kieron

            It hardly matters who the members of Progress are, they don’t run the organisation.

            As for the Fabians, if they ever did become involved in internal decisions (other than via the SocSoc system according to the rules) or adopt sharper positions seen to be creating pressure within the party, then they would  suddenly become very vulnerable to this kind of criticism, in the way Progress is now. Not, of course, that I think they are likely to.

            I left Compass when it removed itself from the LP and allowed full membership to members of other parties so I’m certainly not going to defend their model now!

  • paul barker

    test

    • Daniel Speight

      No, it’s the real thing.

  • paul barker

    Progress are in a bind, if they dont defend themselves they will allow labours left to push them out of the party, bit by bit. If progress fight back  the press will be full of stories about labour splits. The left have the great advantage that they dont particularly want to win in 2015, they have nothing to lose.

    • Duncan

      Utter, utter garbage.  If any group doesn’t want to win in 2015 it is a (very) small element of the right who would feel vindicated by a loss and be able to bring their own person in on a pro-austerity agenda. 

      Please stop repeating this nonsense about “the left” – “the left” are not attacking Progress.

      • 35theydon

        I think you will find that the Left are attacking Progress.  Its very clear for all to see, after all who started this nonsense.  Lurch to the left, we lose, lurch to the right, we lose, center ground progressive politics will always win.

        • treborc

           I see Progress are here again protecting the honour of Tony Jesus Blair

        • Duncan

          “The left” may well “attack” (or criticise) Progress on their politics  – that’s just the cut and thrust of political activity, and we get the same back of course; organisational attacks have not come from “the left”. 

          Elsewhere on this site Luke Akehurst talks about addressing policies on their merits, which is not a bad suggestion: rather than talking about “lurching” one way or another (quite an abstract concept in reality) we should be talking about which policies work and – crucially – who those policies work for. 

          I really couldn’t give a monkeys about Progress organisationally – I just hope they lose the political argument, and I would imagine I’m fairly representative of “the left”, in that respect at least.

          • 35theydon

            I’m with you on the issue of policies as stated in my earlier post.  However do not agree with you about Progress.  Progress is important to the Labour Party in just the same way as GMB. 

          • Duncan

            To make it absolutely clear – I entirely respect Progress’ right to exist and to do what they do and what they want.  I disagree with the policy programme they promote so I hope they lose the political argument.

            I would also hope that they remain in the Labour Party (the more the merrier, the broader the better) and keep doing what they do, just as I stayed and fought for socialist policies through the New Labour period.

        • Alex

          The leftwing position has always been against Progress on policy, but also against factional expulsions. 

          I am suspicious of Progress because of its opaque internal structure. Who elects the chair and advisory board? Who selects the delegates at their conferences? I want Progress to reform itself so it will have the legitimacy to take a role internally. There is a huge difference between that and wanting to expel Progress.

        • Daniel Speight

           As in 2010? What way were we lurching then?

  • Browncow

    Whatever your leaning, surely a company that claims to be aligned to your party, who wont specifically affiliate to it and takes loads of money from people who want to influence said party’s policies but refuse to donate directly to it is a bit worrying? Why don’t Progress just affiliate to the Party – what does it have to lose by doing that? Easy answer?

    • Luke Akehurst

      Hi

      none of the myriad of pressure groups and political currents in the Labour Party is affiliated to it.

      Until this year when Labour Movement for Europe became affiliated, none of the single issue campaigns trying to influence the Labour Party was affiliated either.

      Affiliation is normally reserved for groups that do not have a particular long-term political line to push.

      I think it is highly unlikely that the NEC would want pressure groups/currents to have affiliate status – be it Progress, Labour First, Compass, CLPD, LRC, GRA, Socialist Action or whoever, or single issue groups like LCER or Labour Friends of X country. None of these groups have a formal status in the party, are regulated by the party or fund the party. The party doesn’t regulate the way in which members associate with each other as long as it doesn’t breach party rules.

      These organisations’ purpose is to seek to influence debate in all the units and affiliates of the Labour Party, not to be formal units or affiliates themselves.

      Luke

      • http://twitter.com/c_quigley Christine Quigley

         I think that Luke is being slightly disingenous here by lumping together various different types of groups.

        The Labour Party’s website lists its affiliates through the Socialist Societies structure: http://www.labour.org.uk/affiliates

        Many of these, such as the Labour Party Irish Society or the Labour Movement for Europe which I’m a member of, are groups which Luke is construing as pressure groups or currents. However, they’re both democratic and transparent organisations with a formalised method of intervention within the Labour Party.

        As I’ve mentioned below, the Fabian Society is also a think-tank affiliated to the Labour Party through the Socialist Societies – I think it’s a reasonable model for Progress to consider.

        • http://kieronam.net/ Kieron

          Absolutely agree with Christine here.

          The SocSocs structure is there to allow groups of Labour supporters
          (/sympathisers in some cases) to participate in the LP processes, which
          is a positive thing, but in a transparent and democratic way and
          according to the LP rules.

      • http://kieronam.net/ Kieron

        Luke, as you know many of those would be only too happy to affiliate as soon as they reach the necessary minimum membership and other criteria. Quite often it’s the big initial driving goal for the nascent groups.

        As for the NEC, if they’ve accepted LME why not the others?

  • ThePurpleBooker

    Keiron is wrong in almost everything he said. Progress lost money as a result of Lord Sainsbury refusing to give money. GMB started this fight and they will lose out, not win. And what about proper scrutiny over the trade unions? Len McCluskey is not even a member of the Labour party yet he wants to wield in fluence over party policy. How about we have investigation into him. Or PCS some of whose members are also trying to infleunce party policy? So this article is just stinking with bloody hypocrisy.

    • treborc

       Boring mate really boring

    • Alex

      Len McCluskey is a party member. Where on earth do you get your nonsense from?

    • treborc

      Obviously the wrestling bout you had affected you, how are you feeling
      Lembit Opik

  • http://twitter.com/mistyblulabour dave stone

    Thanks Kieron, for this carefully reasoned piece.

    Your suggestion that Progess is dependent on external resources precisely because of an absence of popular support within the Party is particularly compelling.

    • http://kieronam.net/ Kieron

      Thanks Dave

  • Johndclare

    To try to strike a position of conciliation *between* the two factions:

    1. Yes, there are worries about Progress which you’d have to be purposefully blinded not to see (not least themoney situation); it would not be unreasonable for the Labour Party to ask Progress at least to acknowledge and discuss these reservations.  So the questions are stark and out there for Progress — are you a ‘faction’, and if not prove it by affiliating and sorting the funding issue.

    2. Nobody is followed for a minute by all this ‘there is no such move to expel anyone from the party’ bluster from the GMB. Yes it is true that the motion did not call for explusion (in fact, it was hard to disagree with a word of the motion.  However, in his summing up speech  Paul Kenny explicitly advocated ‘effectively outlawing’ Progress from the Labour, which to most of us means ‘expelling’.  So the question is stark and out there for Kenny – do you want to expel Progress or not.

    Both sides need to come out of ‘outrage’ mode, and the Labour leadership needs to challenge them *both* about whose side they are really on.

  • Steve Race

    All Progress members are Labour Party members. Can GMB and other unions say the same?

    • 35theydon

      Fully agree

    • http://kieronam.net/ Kieron

      Does it even matter who Progress members are, when it’s not them who run the organisation?

      • Steve Race

        It’s run by Progress members, who are members of the Labour Party… Again – can GMB say the same? Are all GMB staffers Labour Party members? 

    • treborc

       Well off course a lot of them are members, work it out your self, 650,000 members of the GMB who give £3 political levy, which is then passed on to the Labour party, which use to be £2 million, if your not a labour party member you can give your levy as some do to charity.

      last year we were told that we would not be giving so much to labour so we gave £1.4 million, then labour requested money for running cost and they were given £500,000 I believe, so labour had the £2 million.

      remind me how much Progress gave.

      • Steve Race

        So Progress don’t give money to the Labour Party (in common with The Fabians, Compass, SERA, LGBTLabour etc etc etc) and yet allegedly have undue influence… GMB give £1.4m and expect a say over policy.

        And this is not twisted logic because…?

        • Alex

          SERA and the Fabians do give money to Labour. It’s what affiliates do. 

          You’ve totally misunderstood. It’s not about ‘undue influence’ as such, but about the fact that Progress is so shady in its internal workings that the influence it has (which is considerable) is not legitimate. If it wants to play a part it should be open and upfront.

    • robertcp

      Of course not, unless you count people that pay the political levy. 

      Trade unions have more than 6 million members.  That is far more than all of the strange people, including me, that are members of any political party.  Members of trade unions are probably more representative of voters than members of the Labour Party. 

      • Steve Race

        Levy payers are not party members. 

        They certainly are more representative of the public at large – around a third of Unite members vote Conservative for example. So they should have a say over Labour Party policy because….?

        In fact I’m happy with the the situation as I believe we’re strengthened by having a range of opinion in the Labour Party. The GMB and select other Trades Unionists apparently are not. 

        • Alex

          Tory-supporting union members are unlikely to pay the political levy. They therefore have no role in the party-affiliate relationship, and their voice within the union’s internal structures is likely to be very minimal as activists tend not to be Tories…

        • Robertcp

          Levy payers should have some influence because they make a contribution.  Even if in many cases it is because they do nor bother to opt out.  It also seemed that they could not be bothered to vote in the Labour leadersip election either.

          I agree with you about having a range of opinion in the Labour Party.

  • John Dore

    …and the left wingers campaign against Progress marched on. Just evil.

    • John Dore

      Forgot to add, they want to cleanse the party of what they see as New Labour.

      • ibid

         Like New Labour did with hard leftists. Just evil.

        • johnp Reid

          Ibid, apart from Kinnock expelling militant and George Galloway Clare short and Ken livingstone leaving ,when did new labour expel people they disagreed with, John McDonnell ,Jeremy corbyn,and in the latters case it was their choice to stand against the labour candidates,

        • John Dore

          Yes Militant was a force for Progressive change wasn’t it? They had a real strategy for everyone.

          Militant was a joke.

  • Pingback: kieronam » The choice for Progress

  • John

    Because GMB have never  tried to “influence selections for parliamentary candidates, NEC elections and other decisions made within the party” or undermine the leadership.

    Get a grip of yourself, this is cowardly, weaselly attempt to justify purging party members just because you don’t agree with them and at a time when the party has never been more united.

    It’s horrible, petty and completely uncomradely. The GMB eh? The new nasty party.

    • AlanGiles

      The longer Progress refuse to answer questions the longer those questions will go on being put.

      Just a few simple answers – straight answers to straight questions would probably end the matter.

      Meanwhile, the more irate right-wingers get, and the more reluctant Progress are to speak of the matters that concern many people, it will just fan the flames even more.

      If they finally do not answer the questions, it will be for everybody to make up their own mind as to why they won’t and will be quite entitled to join theior own conclusions for the silence.

Latest

  • Comment Should people be asked if they are party supporters when they register to vote?

    Should people be asked if they are party supporters when they register to vote?

    Chris Clark and Rav Seeruthun on a small change that if adopted, would free activists to spend more time on community work Every year at party conferences we hear professional politicians eulogise hard-working party volunteers. And there’s no activity more often evoked than that of ‘knocking on doors’. It’s a common delusion that the purpose of doorstep canvassing is to ‘persuade’ voters. Having taken part in our fair share of Labour canvassing sessions, we’ve both had the dispiriting experience of [...]

    Read more →
  • Europe Featured You can always rely on the Conservatives to ignore the public when it comes to Europe

    You can always rely on the Conservatives to ignore the public when it comes to Europe

    By Douglas Alexander

    Europe is not often the issue which comes top of people’s concerns on the doorstep. Nor do opinion polls suggest that Europe is a priority for voters when compared to issues like the economy or jobs. But you can always rely on the Conservatives to ignore the public when it comes to Europe. This week saw over a hundred Conservative MPs rebel and vote against their own Queens Speech. They were angry that it hadn’t included a bill which would [...]

    Read more →
  • News Seats and Selections Vicky Foxcroft selected as Labour’s PPC for Lewisham Deptford

    Vicky Foxcroft selected as Labour’s PPC for Lewisham Deptford

    Vicky Foxcroft has been selected by Lewisham Deptford CLP as the party’s candidate for 2015 at a selection meeting this afternoon. Here’s a brief biography: Vicky grew up in the North West in a single parent household, and was the first person in her family to go to university. She has held many positions in the party including Chair of Labour Students, has sat on the National Policy Forum and is currently a local councillor and is Chair of Lewisham [...]

    Read more →
  • Comment Labour’s future schools policy: why accountability matters

    Labour’s future schools policy: why accountability matters

    By Mike Ion

    Stephen Twigg, Labour’s Shadow Education Secretary is one of the more thoughtful and pragmatic individuals to hold this vitally important brief for some time. To his credit Stephen has been out and about these past two years listening to pupils, teachers, parents and governors and finding out more about the challenges they face on a day-to-day basis. In addition Stephen has been looking closely at some local, regional, national and international programmes that have had a demonstrable impact in raising [...]

    Read more →
  • News Seats and Selections Falkirk selection process suspended by the party

    Falkirk selection process suspended by the party

    The Labour Party have this afternoon suspended the selection process for Falkirk, after concerns were raised about “membership recruitment”. We understand that Ed Miliband was “keen to act swiftly” as the selection process was due to formally begin on Sunday. An officer of the party – yet to be confirmed – will investigate. A Labour spokesperson told us this afternoon: “We have suspended the start of the selection process of the Falkirk parliamentary seat. Concerns have been raised about membership [...]

    Read more →