The Electoral Commission has written to Linda Smith to say that they have no legal power to remove her as Leader and Nominating Officer of Respect, even if they wanted to do so which they don’t. That means that who can stand for Respect will remain in her hands and the SWP Respect can never…
The Electoral Commission has written to Linda Smith to say that they have no legal power to remove her as Leader and Nominating Officer of Respect, even if they wanted to do so which they don’t.
That means that who can stand for Respect will remain in her hands and the SWP Respect can never get control of the name.
Of course the Electoral Commission has no power to remove someone from an office in their political party!
It up for political parties to elect their own officers.
Will Linda Smith refuse to sign the nomination papers of Lindsey German despite her being agreed as a candidate by Respect (unsplit)?
Will Linda Smith refuse to sign the papers of the GLA candidates elected at a mass meeting by Respect (Unsplit)?
The answer is clearly, yes! And therefore her position is untenable.
Meanwhile without consultation of a wide section of Respect’s membership, George Galloway has announced that he will be standing a rival slate of candidates to those democratically chosen by the Respect membership,
LikeLike
My understanding is that they’ve refused to intervene and stated that its for us to work out.
LikeLike
More intriguing is Liam’s pointed refusal to answer questions about Respect Renewal going gung-ho in support for Ken Livingstone (clearly the official position) and attacking as ultra-left the idea of standing a socialist candidate for mayor this despite the fact that Lindsey German was selected as a candidate by a united Respect and George Galloway himself wrote to the Morning Star to defend standing a candidate against Ken.
More sign that Socialist Resistance are Respect Renewal’s useful idiots?
LikeLike
Adamski have you thought of looking for work coaching people with poor social skills?
There is a difference of opinion about Livingstone. SR feels that it is not possible to give him political support but the voting system in the mayoral elections allows you to give him a second preference to keep Johnson out. We will be issuing a statement about this in the very near future.
On the other hand GG, Andy and lots of other do support him. So what? We’ll discuss it. SR will probably lose the argument but we have long experience of that.
It’s an subject of debate not an opportunity to flounce out in disgust. What’s different in RR is that you never know which way an argument is going to go. It’s a refreshing change.
LikeLike
“It’s an subject of debate not an opportunity to flounce out in disgust. What’s different in RR is that you never know which way an argument is going to go. It’s a refreshing change.”
“On the other hand GG, Andy and lots of other do support him. So what? We’ll discuss it. SR will probably lose the argument but we have long experience of that. ”
You are somewhat naive – of course in a new formation things will seem fresh and exciting, but I think as time progresses you will begin to notice a pattern of thinking from significant blocs within RR
You don’t seem aware that RR have already headlined on their website that they support Ken Livingstone? Their isn’t going to be a debate, it’s been decided.
Salma Yaqoob has already signed a (totally uncritical) letter of support for Ken Livingstone – not in a personal capacity – but as Vice Chair of Respect.
LikeLike
Yes John – the Electoral Commission has come down on our side, agreeing with what we were saying all along: The SWP needs to negotiate.
LikeLike
Maybe it would help to see the full text of the letter rather than announcing selective titbits.
As I’ve posted elsewhere, currently there is a stalemate where boths sides can claim victory, RR hold the nominating officer, R-swp have the treasurer and the postal address. Using the Respect name R-SWP can’t stand candidates unless Linda Smith signs the forms, RR can’t stand without access to the officially registered office and the treasurer sign-off.
It’s anyones guess who’ll blink first. My view is that SWP can use this as a pretext not to stand German for mayor and can just put Respect into cold store until RR give up on the name or SWP move onto something more recruitable.
I think all this means that Galloway won’t be able to use the Respect name in the near future and so it will probably be ditched.
LikeLike
good respect is a shit name anyway lets hope its never used again
as for mayor, did renewal even discuss this issue and reach a position? why did they u-turn the decision to stand a candidate just a few months ago?
yes, the media hate ken. nothing new there. that doesnt change ken’s record which is far from left wing.
best wishes,
ks
LikeLike
“RR can’t stand without access to the officially registered office and the treasurer sign-off.”
I don’t think you understand the role of the treasurer under election law, Martin.
LikeLike
Toncy, maybe I don’t but according to the EC all correspondence between the EC and a party is sent via the treasurer and the treasurer has to ensure that the parties accounts are submitted in a timely manner, for individual elections candidates agents are responsible for submitting statements of expenses, but the treasurer is responsible for submitting details of general spending by the party, I would conclude from that, the treasurer will need to agree any general spending on the election.
Anyway, howabout publising the full text of the EC letter just in case you have all intepreted in the same way but incorrectly .
LikeLike
this whole episode shows how poor the SWP are at politics, they have been outmanoeuvred time and again
they should have admitted defeat months back, but didn’t to either save face or any assets that they could get their hands on
but instead the dispute has dragged on interminably, and without purpose, it would have been easy enough to say “okay let’s sit down and make the split formal, tidy up things and do it comradely”
but NO, the SWP couldn’t even do that
pathetic
LikeLike
You don’t seem aware that RR have already headlined on their website that they support Ken Livingstone?
You keep saying this, but I can’t see that it’s true. Yes, the RR Web site features a pro-Livingstone statement by Galloway, but I don’t see any official statement of support in the name of RR.
LikeLike
Martin, why don’t you check the rules before writing? The SWP cannot stand under the name of Respect. It is entirely possible to run election campaigns as long as the accounts are kept. The legal responsibility is for the local treasurer to keep and return an accurate account. It is the responsibility of the national treasurer to sign them off in time. If accurate local accounts are sent to the national treasurer and the national treasurer does not sign them off then they NOT the local campaign treasurer are responsible. Get it? To be clear, Respect (the democratic non SWP part) can a)stand candidates within the law and b) SWP Respect cannot (Unless democratic Respect decides they can) – end of discussion
LikeLike
So how many Respect branches have affiliated to Respect Renewal?
LikeLike
Atis, maybe you are right, I’m still waiting to see the full text of the reply from the EC.
I can’t see how RR can raise money to use as campaign funds without involving the current treasurer, maybe there is some subtlety I’m missing. I think the current appeal for partners on a new list is the proof that RR can’t use the Respect name on the ballot paper.
LikeLike
There is Martin, they can use their own treasurer for THAT purpose. Campaigns can be run. Expenditure made by local parties whether they be Labour, Tory Liberal or Respect. All they have to do is send off proper accounts to the national office – that is it. What Elaine Graham Leigh does next is up to her – the local poeple have met their side of the bargain. Deomocratic Respect can use the Respect name because Linda nominates – and can keep and return proper accounts to EGL (SWP Respect) to keep within the law. My guess is that the broader platform idea is, well, to create a broader platform and hopefully a party to the left of Labour – something the SWP never wanted.
LikeLike
Can we have some context, Liam? Why did the EC write to Smith? Was this in response to a request by Smith? If so, what was the content of her request? Did she ask them is there no way the members of Respect can ever get rid of her? If she falls out with Galloway, can she deny the members of Respect Renewal to use the name? Are the names of the Labour Party, Tory Party, Lib Dems and every other party the personal property of one member who can walk away with the name? Hardly seems plausible, although it appears to be what Liam is telling us. My guess is that this is Liam passing off a misleading letter from the EC that simply says that provided Smith remains a member of Respect, and provided the membership of Respect don’t vote to remove her as the nomimating officer, there is nothing they can do to intervene in what is none of their business. However, she has split. She cannot take the name of the party with her. Given these circumstances, the EC’s letter, it would seem, is entirely besides the point. Care to comment, Liam?
LikeLike
Paul, it is simple. The EC will not get involved in the matter. They will tell both sides to settle their differences and if they cannot do that then i guess the phrase is ‘seek legal advice’. SWP Respect will have to go to a judicial review to force the issue against Democratic Respect because otherwise the EC would have carte blanche to intervene into inner party political disputes and political splits – that is not something the legislation allows for – which is why the EC will not get involved.
LikeLike
Let’s see the letter then if it clears everything up.
LikeLike
In any event. the SWP-Reespect have called a meeting for 31st january to select six candidates for the GLA list.
Therefore the SWP are the ones who “blinked first” by admitting that the selections pre-split are no longer valid. If the six are no longer official respect candudates, then neither is Lindsey.
Martin Ohr is simply wrong. The treasurer has no bearing on a party’s ability to stand candidates.
The EC’s ruling leaves Respect Renewal in sole charge of the name Respect, to use if we wish.
LikeLike
And as for paul/Tom Delargy’s point.
Linda smith is a member of respect, and remains nominating officer until a properly constitited conference replaces her.
Now, the element of stalemate which does exist is that neither side of Respect can hold such a conference without involving te other half. that is whay we need negotiations to finalise the divorce.
But let us be clear, the SWP, Lindesy german will not be able to use the Respect name in elections. RR can.
LikeLike
Can someone please publish the text of this ‘ruling’ so that we can see just what the EC have said. Has anyone commenting here actually seen the letter in question?
LikeLike
Yes, I’ve seen the letter. It says what I and others have said that it says.
LikeLike
Toncy, in that case please can you post the text of the letter so that we can all enjoy it.
I would be surprised to find the electoral commission write “…even if we wanted to do so which we don’t” in a formal ruling as Liam claims.
LikeLike
Members of Respect Renewal don’t are not known for their trustworthiness. So forgive me, tonyc, if your word counts for nothing. If you have read the letter, as he claim you have, then post it. Until you do, no one will believe you. If the Electoral Commission had written to Linda Smith to promise her that the name “Respect” is her personal property until she dies, I think Andy Newman would be posting this good news on his blog. He keeps his council because he knows this is a non-story. Linda Smith, I suspect, simply asked the Electoral Commision if they could remove her as Respect’s nominating officer and impose someone else against the wishes of Respect’s membership. Given such a rediculous question, comrade Smith got the answer she expected. No, if Respect wants to elect (or appoint) a different nominating officer, then that is a matter for them. The idea that the Electoral Commission wrote to Smith to inform her that even if she quit Respect, or was expelled (conceivably for refusing to endorse candidates constitutionally selected by Respect), she could stop Respect members using the name, forcing them to waste an unknown amount of money in a rebranding exercise, and political prestige, and years of self-sacrifice to earn important name-recognition… This is too rediculous for words. The fact that Liam is peddling this obvious lie suggests that he has entered a race with Andy Newman to see who can most rapidly plunge the depths of honesty and integrity. My money is on Andy. He is too far ahead to catch up now.
LikeLike
if Respect wants to elect (or appoint) a different nominating officer, then that is a matter for them
The rules of the Electoral Commission state that any change of nominating officer has to be communicated to the EC within 14 days of the change taking place, by means of a letter signed by both the new nominating officer and the old one.
In other words, Smith will only be replaced as nominating officer when & if she writes to the EC saying who she was replaced by and when it happened. The EC ruling Liam reports is profoundly unsurprising.
LikeLike
Liam, Phil Toncy, please post the ruling from the EC so that there is no doubt as to what was said and then we can all move on to arguing about something else.
LikeLike
I’m not arguing about the EC letter, Martin. I’m explaining.
I don’t have any obligation to show you anything, nor do I have any interest in whether you want to take my word for it or not.
LikeLike
Toncy,
At this stage then I would have to say -putting it as politely as possible- this story and your comments are full of crap. Until I see it, I do not believe that the EC has made any sort of ‘ruling’ as claimed, and this whole story is bluster.
LikeLike
That’s fine, Marnit – I haven’t intervened in order to convince you; whether you believe me or not really isn’t relevant.
LikeLike
Toncy, that’s because in fact the EC has made no such ruling otherwise someone -Socialist Unity, Liam, RR website, Respect Supporters Blog would have published it alread.
This ‘ruling’ does not exist and it merely hot air.
LikeLike
Marnit, you’re funny.
You’re similar to the person who contacted us to ask why we’re not promoting the next anti-war demo on our website. They sent me a furious email about how we’re so sectarian against the SWP, we won’t even promote something that the SWP supports.
Truth is, of course, it’s been on the website for weeks. Except that we found a bug that’s stopping the image being displayed in certain browsers. It was only cos of this furious email that we spotted it, and we’re trying to work out what to do about it.
Now, Marnit, the person who sent the email won’t believe that no matter what I say, and there’s absolutely nothing I can do to prove that it’s been on the site for ages.
They, like you, have decided that WE ARE INVETERATE LIARS.
And me, like most of my colleagues, have realised that we don’t care if you think we’re lying or not. It’s very, very boring. We’ve got better things to do than to meet your demands.
Marnit, you’re just laughably wrong. The letter will be published when we want to publish it, if we want to publish it. The bland truth is, people are still discussing how to respond to it. We’d like to do that with people in Respect first, thanks.
LikeLike
Tony,
not sure what you are babbling on about regarding your website.
I can see no reason why you would publish a 2 line summary of the ‘ruling’ without putting the full text up- one logical answer is that the ‘ruling’ does not actually match the summary that Liam has written here, but that it is too embarassing to publish the actual text from the EC. I think it is more likely that in fact the communication’ from the EC is just a letter replying to a specific question from Linda Smith rather than being a formal ruling.
Doesn’t really matter whether you publish it or not because the EC press office publish all rulings within a couple of days as a matter of course, since rulings affect all parties, not just those making a compaint etc. Of course they don’t publish private correspondence, but do make it available to journalists under FOI.
LikeLike
“not sure what you are babbling on about regarding your website.”
Martin, I’m talking about people who are determined not to believe other people and who only assume the worst.
LikeLike
Martin,
I don’t have a copy of the text of the letter. Linda does and because it’s a LETTER it’s probably on paper. However the quote in the post above is from someone who has seen the letter and hasn’t lied to me before about anything.
My understanding is that there are discussions on negotiations about to happen and then everything will become clear.
You have to admit though that all through this process RR has been pretty consistent about putting the facts in the public domain.
LikeLike
granted RR have been pretty consistent about publishing other peoples documents into the public domain -but not their own so far.
Again I would have to say that I’d be surprised if the EC have made a ruling as claimed, and if they have that it bore any resemblance to the text of your post. If it is a ruling then the wording will indeed very extremely important. If it is just a reply to a general question then the gist of the letter is probably enough.
Given that you haven’t seen the letter yourself I would have thought that you would be more curious as to the exact contents since it clearly has the potential to be very important for the future of either branch of respect.
LikeLike
Again I would have to say that I’d be surprised if the EC have made a ruling as claimed
Martin, there’s a thing called Google. It will enable you to find the Electoral Commission Web site, where you can download the EC’s regulations concerning party registration. It takes about as long as it does to compose a comment on a blog.
I’m not posting a link here, on the general principle of not doing people’s homework for them, but here’s the relevant bit of the text:
“4.8 The registered treasurer of a party must notify the Commission when registered party officers are replaced. No fee is required to change a party officer.
4.9 Where a party officer is replaced, the treasurer is responsible for submitting an application to register a replacement officer (form RP4). This must be signed by the current registered treasurer, leader and nominating officer (and the additional officer if one person holds all three posts) as well as the new party officer. If any officer is unable to sign the application, it must be signed by another officer of the party. An explanation of why the officer is unable to sign the form, and a declaration that the other officer is authorised to sign in his absence, must be given.
4.10 Details of changes to party officers must be submitted to the Commission within 14 days of the death or the termination of appointment of a registered officer.”
Linda Smith doesn’t accept that she’s been validly replaced. There’s nothing in the RESPECT rulebook that enables Rees (or Oli Rahman) to overrule her on this point, or to expel her from RESPECT. As a result it’s not possible for RESPECT/SWP to follow the EC’s procedure to register a new nominating officer, and there’s no reason for the EC to act off its own bat.
LikeLike
The only thing interesting about Martin Ohr’s comments is the sectarian method.
Instead of ever acquainting himself with what the Electoral Commission had said in parallel circumstances or contacting them or listening to those who had, he just proclaimed what they thought ought to be reality. It doesn’t work like that. You may be surprised, Martin, anyone who knew anything about these matters wouldn’t be.
LikeLike
Phil,
I don’t necessarily disagree with your reading of the EC guidlines. I’m interested to see the EC ‘ruling’ which Liam claims to quote, since no-one is willing to produce the text of the ‘ruling’ any sane person would conclude that it does not exist and the story is bullshit.
LikeLike
Martin, when you write: “any sane person would conclude “,
how do you know, have you asked one?
LikeLike
Andy, as always good to see you maintaining your high level debating skills and engaging the arguments head-on.
LikeLike
Really, you dont need to see the EC letter to get the point. It is in the legislation. This is what the EC lawyer’s will have told them. This is what the EC will then have told the SWP and Democratic Respect. That is what will be in the EC letter when it is published . Game over for the SWP on the name front is my reading of the legislation and surrounding law.
LikeLike
If the letter exists and says what Liam claims then why not publish?
LikeLike
Here’s that letter from the Electoral Commission in full:
To: Mr. G. Galloway and Friends
In The Club Row
Landahn
Dear Sir/Madam,
thank you for your correspondence. For the bleeding obvious points of electoral law please see our website at http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/regulatory-issues/Politicalparties.cfm
Please refer to the document ‘Guidance on registering as a political party – party registration’ for more information about registering a political party.
Once a party is registered with us, it is required to ensure that it maintains an accurate entry on the register of political parties. Changes to party details must be forwarded to us, and an annual confirmation of details must also be submitted.
Now stop wasting our time.
Bye-bye
pp. Someone who has nothing better to do than waste time writing to the likes of you (Ms)
LikeLike
LETTER PUBLISHED HERE
http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=1617
LikeLike
Well the letter doesn’t quite say what Liam claims but it’s close enough, although to describe it as a ruling is somewhat far fetched.
I do think the letter means that the stalemate I described orginally still stands, neither side can stand in the election using the respect name.
LikeLike
Liam redux 
Leave a reply to Martin Ohr Cancel reply