This was covered in the Morning Star here

Continue reading →

In May 2020 Keir Starmer asked the barrister Martin Forde to investigate an explosive leaked Labour Party report which included outrageous allegations of racism, hyper-factionalism and even electoral sabotage by party officials. It also seemed to show how the Corbyn leadership tried to appease the right, leading for example to the expulsion of Jackie Walker and the resignations of Chris Williamson and Ken Livingstone.

But over a year later the Forde Inquiry still hasn’t reported. Many people believe Forde’s findings are being suppressed because the party’s leadership wants to bury the truth. But we’re not going to let that happen.

That’s why we held the “Not The Forde Inquiry”, to give people the chance to say in public what they would have told the inquiry if they’d had the chance.

Testifying to the inquiry were:

• Jackie Walker
• Chris Williamson
• Graham Bash
• Leah Levane
• Tina Werkmann
• Rebecca Massey
• Kevin Bean
• Greg Hadfield and many many more
• The inquiry also heard a special message from film director Ken Loach

Anyone who wants to put a question or comment to the inquiry can email it to us on info@labour-in-exile.org or just do it in person on the day. Whistleblowers are particularly welcome!

Brief report on anonymised responses to the LIEN Witch-Hunt Analysis Group questionnaire, which you can fill in here.

Prepared by Neil Todd, 5^th April, 2021

You can download the report as a PDF file here.

ACTIVITY. Thus far we’ve had 30 responses. The respondents are predominantly from the south of England (73%) with no representation from East Midlands, Wales or Scotland. The vast bulk of them (60%) were 2015 joiners/rejoinders who became very active members (86%) with about 50% having held positions of office or who had been delegates.   

INVESTIGATION AND JUDGEMENT. Currently 63 % (19/30) are or have been under investigation, mostly from 2018 onwards and peaking in 2020, with 15 suspended, three expelled and three resigned. In total 19 of the 30 respondents had been suspended or disciplined in some manner. Of these 12 held positions of office or where delegates.  By far the largest category of “charge” was under Chapter 2, clause 1.8 of the Rule Book. None of the recent cases were given an NCC hearing. 

IMPACT. About 21% (four of the 19 respondents suspended or expelled) were contacted by journalists. In terms of the effect of mental health, there are two distinct groups. About 30% did not experience ill effects, but about 55% experienced serious mental health effects. Eight of the 19 respondents suspended or expelled made SAR requests, but only one received a response. 

FUTURE. Most respondents who haven’t been expelled or resigned are planning to remain. The most popular left groupings are LLA and Momentum. Of those who have been expelled or resigned three have joined other organisations.  The respondents are divided on whether there is a future for socialists in the LP, with 33% YES but 50% ‘Don’t know’ or ‘Didn’t say’. There is considerable uncertainty about whether there is a need for a new party, with more that 70% ‘Don’t know’ or ‘Didn’t say’. 

PART III: CLP Membership and Activity

III.1 CLPs (30 responses).  See Figure 1. 

South East: Brighton Kemptown (1), Chesham and Amersham (1), Chichester (1), North Thanet (2), South Thanet (3), Rochester & Stroud (1), E Worthing and Shoreham (1). 

South West: Bristol North West (1), Central Devon (1), Exeter (1), Plymouth Moor View (1), South West Wiltshire (2), Weston-super-Mare (1). London: Cities of London and Westminster (1), Greenwich (1), Hampstead and Kilburn (1), Streatham (1). North West: Burnley (1), Cheadle (1).  East: Cambridge (2), Saffron Walsden. West Midlands: Coventry North East (1). Yorkshire and Humberside :  Keighley and Ilkley (1). North East: Sunderland Central (1).

Figure 1: Respondent CLP by Region

III.2 YEAR JOINED (30 responses, Figure 2).   

Figure 2: Respondents by year of joining. 

III.3 POSITIONS HELD (30 responses, Figure 3). 

Figure 3: Respondent by position held within CLP.

III.4 ATTENDANCE (30 responses, Figure 4).     

Figure 4: Percentage of respondent by frequency of attendance.  

Monthly 83% (25/30), Quarterly 13% (4/30), less than once a year 3% (1/30).

.  

PART IV: INVESTIGATION 

IV.1 UNDER INVESTIGATION? (30 responses, Figure 5a and 5b).

Figure 5a: Percentage of respondents under investigation.  

YES 63% (19/30), NO 37% (21/30).

Figure 5b: Cross-tabulation of respondent under investigation by position held within CLP. 

Chair 80% (4/5), Secretary 75% (3/4), Delegate 75% (3/4), Officer 67% (2/3), Member 50% (7/14). 

IV.2 YEAR OF INVESTIGATION (19 responses, Figure 6).   

Figure 6: Of those 19 investigated, the year when their investigation was initiated. 

IV.4 CASE NUMBER VS DATE (5 responses + previous data, Figure 7).  

Figure 7: Cumulative case numbers versus date of investigation, with linear curve fitted. 

IV.5 OFFENCE (19/30 responses, Figure 8). 

Figure 8: Offences which respondents investigated for (percentage of total respondents). 

IV.6 AUTO-EXCLUDED? (6 responses, Figure 9).  

Figure 9: Percentage of respondents auto-excluded if investigated for “support for another party”.  

YES 67% (4/6), NO (2/6).

IV.7 What kind of ‘Evidence’ provided (19 responses, Figure 10)   

Figure 10: Kind of ‘evidence’ provided as a percentage of respondents under investigation (19/30):  

social media posts 58% (11/19), No evidence 26% (5/19), Hearsay 10.5% (2/1).

IV.11 SUSPENDED? (19 responses, Figure 11)   

Figure 11: Respondents suspended as a percentage of respondents under investigation (19/30). 

YES 79% (15/19), NO 10.5% (2/19), Didn’t Answer 10.5% (2/19). 

IV.12 RESIGNED? (19 responses, Figure 12).  

Figure 12: Respondents resigned as a percentage of respondents under investigation (19/30). 

YES 16% (3/19), NO 74% (14/19), Didn’t Answer 10.5% (2/19). 

PART V: JUDGEMENT

V.1 DATE (5 responses): 2018 20% (1/5), 2020 80% (4/5). 

V.4 LEGAL ADVICE? (10 responses): YES 10.5% (2/19), NO 42% (8/19), DA 58% (11/19) 

V.6 OUTCOME? (9 responses, Figure 13).  

Figure 13: Of those who reported an NEC judgement (9/19 the outcomes were:

Expelled 33% (3/9), Punitively suspended 22% (2/9), Other 22% (2/9), 

NEC warning (1/9), No further action (1/9).

V.7 NCC HEARING? (5 responses):   YES 0% (0/5), NO 100% (5/4). 

PART VI: IMPACT 

VI.1 JOURNALIST CONTACT? (19 responses):   NO 79% (15/19), YES 21% (4/19)

VI.4 EFFECT ON MENTAL HEATH? (19 responses, Figure 14). 

Figure 14: Of those who responded (19/30) the effect on mental health on a five point scale:

1 26% (5/19), 2 10.5% (2/19), 3 21% (4/19), 4 32% (6/19), 5 10.5% (2/19).

VI.6 SAR REQUEST? (19 responses):  YES 42% (8/19), NO 47% (9/19), DA 10.5% (2/19). 

VI.7 SAR RESPONSE? (7 responses):   NO 86% (6/7), YES 14% (1/7)

PART VII: FUTURE 

VII.1 PLANNING TO REMAIN? (30 responses): YES 37% (11/30), NO 10% (3/30), 

DA 53% (16/30). 

VII.2 GROUPINGS? (30 responses, Figure 15): 

Figure 15: Of the whole sample those who placed the left grouping (other than LIEN) 1^st or 2^nd:

LLA 27% (8/30), Momentum 23% (7/30), Other 10% (3/30), Didn’t Answer 40% (12/30). 

Other includes LAW, Fight Suspensions, SOS, JVL, Don’t Leave Organise.

VII.3 JOINED ANOTHER ORG? (30 responses):  NO 27% (8/30), YES 10% (3/30), 

DA 63% (19/30).

VII.5 FUTURE FOR SOCIALISM IN LP? (30 responses, Figure 16)

Figure 16: The percentage who believe that there is a future for socialists in the LP:

YES 33% (10/30), NO 17% (5/30), DON’T KNOW 40% (12/30), DA 10% (3/30).

VIII.6 NEED FOR NEW PARTY? (30 responses, Figure 17)

Figure 17: The percentage who believe that there is a need for a new party to replace Labour:

YES 17% (5/30), NO 3% (1/30), DON’T KNOW 26% (8/30), DA 46% (14/30).