Chapter 1: The “open selection” of Dr Peter Kyle as Labour Party parliamentary candidate for Hove in June 2013
This is the first chapter of what was always intended to be a single article. A compendium of all nine chapters — written and published since May 4 2019 — can be found together via this link to the single article (which will be regularly revised in the days and weeks after May 14 2020): Iain McNicol: The criminal conspiracy against the Labour Party, its leadership, and its members
Other individual chapters can be found here: Chapter 1; Chapter 2; Chapter 3; Chapter 4; Chapter 5; Chapter 6; Chapter 7; Chapter 8 (to come); Chapter 9.
From as early as the creation of the City Party in 2011, Simon Burgess, a respected leading local councillor, had been the clear favourite to become the next Labour Party parliamentary candidate — not least because he had substantial behind-the-scenes support from the GMB Union.
The first time I met Malcolm Powers was on December 10 2012 when — at 48 hours’ notice — branch officers had been invited to a meeting with him to discuss which of the three CLPs should be an all-women shortlist and which should be “open”, to both men and women. Of the dozen or so attendees, the two or three from Hove were unanimous: It was “someone else’s turn”, since Celia Barlow, the previous Labour MP for Hove (2005–2010), had been selected from an all-women list. I was alone in suggesting — unsuccessfully — that all three parliamentary candidates in the city should be all-women contests. (It should be noted that never, in the history of the Labour Party, has a woman been selected as a parliamentary candidate in Brighton and Hove except in an all-women list.)
The meeting ended with Powers saying such was the urgency of coming to a decision that he would not have time — with Christmas and New Year nearly upon him — to share his recommendation before submitting a report to the NEC meeting in early January 2013.
At — and after — a City Party meeting on January 19 2013, Julie Cattell, the new secretary who consistently failed to send out due notice of party meetings to all members, told several activists they were not allowed to begin discussing parliamentary selections (not even informally) until Powers gave approval.
In fact, it was not until February 14 2013 that the NEC decided — unsurprisingly — that Hove should be an “open” selection, with all-women lists in the two neighbouring constituencies of Brighton Pavilion and Brighton Kemptown.
The widespread suspicion that this was a bureaucratic “fix” to ensure Simon Burgess could stand in Hove was re-inforced when, within hours of the NEC decision — and before applications had been invited — Cllr Burgess used Twitter to confirm his candidacy, launched a website, and began publishing endorsements from several of his friends. All this was done in clear breach of Labour Party rules surrounding what can and cannot be done in such circumstances.
My concerns increased when selection committees were set up — their memberships were never disclosed — to discuss the selection timetables for two of the three constituencies (Hove and Brighton Kemptown; Brighton Pavilion was left for later because it was not regarded as “winnable” because of the popularity of Green MP Caroline Lucas).
It emerged that Powers had prescribed precisely the same timetables for the “open” selection in Hove as for the all-women process in Brighton Kemptown.
As a result, I asked if I could discuss with the City Party executive committee my concerns about why there was a risk that no women would apply for the Hove vacancy — where a man was already the runaway favourite and when an all-women process was being conducted simultaneously in every respect in nearby Brighton Kemptown. (When I telephoned the City Party chair on his landline at home, he lodged a complaint with Powers accusing me of breaching data protection rules.)
Meanwhile, I repeatedly tried to contact Powers to discuss my concerns, but he never responded — even though he visited Brighton several times in a week to supervise personally local decision-making about the two selections.
Finally, however, he telephoned me on Saturday, March 23 within minutes of the Hove selection committee meeting had ended, claiming disingenuously that he had not returned any of my calls (or emails!) because he had the wrong number for me. Even though my number was easily available on Membersnet. Regardless, it was too late, he said, the timetables had just been set.
At a subsequent briefing for branch officers on March 25 2013, I asked to make a statement; my request was refused and my concerns were ignored.
At 3.17pm on Thursday, March 28 — the day before Good Friday and the East weekend — I made the first of two complaints to McNicol about the Hove selection process (and the circumstances in which Cllr Burgess had circumvented party rules to launch his candidacy).
At 3.0pm on Tuesday — the first working day after Easter Monday — it appears my complaint had already been carefully considered. And rejected, by Creighton.
It is fair to say that by this time I was not popular with Powers, Cattell and others involved in the largely-secret selection process; particularly memorable was the Andy Taylor, the Hove procedures secretary (whom I have still never met or spoken to), accusing me — in a libellous comment on an online news article — of “being investigated for aggressive and intimidating behaviour towards female members”.
Many months later (through two successful Subject Access Requests), I discovered that several provably-false allegations — all of which I could have dealt with if I had been told of them at the time — began arriving at Labour Party headquarters. (This was the beginning of a pattern of behaviour that continues to this day.)
After 16 men applied and were longlisted, of which three men were shortlisted — against Labour Party rules — I made a second complaint to McNicol at 1.08pm on May 30, by email via Tracey Allen, McNicol’s executive assistant who receives many mentions in the leaked report. And who I have only recently learned is a former business partner of McNicol’s wife. (Allen, wife of disgraced Labour MP Phil Woolas, received an MBE in this year’s New Year honours list.)
At 2.06pm — 58 minutes later, on the same day — McNicol rejected my complaint:
The fix was complete. The way was clear: The candidate favoured by McNicol’s union — and, as it turned out, the Hove procedures secretary — had a clear run as one of three male candidates in one of the least “open” selections imaginable.
And then came the shock. After months of me highlighting — both within the party and publicly in the media — Cllr Burgess (to his surprise and mine) lost by a handful of the 100+ votes cast on Saturday, June 15 2013.
The surprise winner was Dr Peter Kyle. It is fair to say that he has never thanked me. And I have never forgiven myself.
More to follow…..Next:
This is the first chapter of an article that is related directly or indirectly to the shocking evidence contained in the recent leaked report entitled “The work of the Labour Party’s Governance and Legal Unit in relation to antisemitism, 2014–2019”. [Separately, I have put online some relevant extracts from the report.]
The complete article will be sent to Martin Forde QC, the chair of the official Labour Party inquiry into the leaked report (even though, strangely but unsurprisingly, its terms of reference do not appear to allow for such democratic engagement).
Please let me know what you think via @GregHadfield; if you have any further information about the individuals or events mentioned, please email greghadfield@hotmail.com.
For much more background, see my full list of Medium articles, many of which are linked to throughout this article; I have also published a list of links to the most-viewed articles.
