What’s going on with membership lists in the London Mayoral selection? Several developments over the last few days suggest that Oona King’s campaign has access to London Labour party membership details beyond those given to the candidates by the Labour party. If so serious questions must be asked about how this has happened.
Like the leadership contenders the Mayoral candidates are entitled to five emails to party members. These are sent out by the party to those London members whose emails are held by the party. They are London-wide emails, not broken down by CLP or borough or any other segment of the party.
In addition the candidates are provided with the email addresses of CLP secretaries.
Earlier this month the candidates were provided with the names and phone numbers – but no other data – by the Labour party, following a decision to provide the same facility to leadership candidates nationally. The candidates are only allowed to use this information for the purpose of the mayoral selection.
If candidates wish to mail members they provide the artwork to the party’s appointed printer, who sends it out.
But in the last few days all the signs are that Oona King’s campaign has started to operate on the basis of membership data not available to both candidates.
Towards the end of last week women members of the party received emails inviting them to an Oona King event in Westminster on September 3rd, chaired by Guardian journalist Polly Toynbee. There are reports all over London that women who received the email include those who have not signed up to Oona King’s mailing list.
It does not seem that Oona King has simply compiled her own email list from publicly available emails. That would certainly apply to councillors’ email addresses, and she would be entitled to the CLP secretaries’ emails. But to compile a wider list she would have needed the permission of those who hold that information.
It is more likely that Oona King’s campaign is operating off membership Labour party membership data. Within the Westminster women’s meeting email, Oona King’s supporters – women MPs including an MP from outside London – promise to send the recipients a postal version of the invitation. Women members of the party have started to receive these mailings today.
That means that Oona King’s campaign has the postal addresses of party members, despite this not being given to the candidates by the party, and has data broken down by gender.
That email alone points to the possibility that Oona King has access to London Labour party membership lists – despite this not being given to Ken Livingstone.
The weekend added evidence to the likelihood that Oona King’s campaign has use of membership information not available to her fellow mayoral candidate.
Oona King’s campaign is organising a number of meet-the-members events in London in August. Party members in CLPs living near to these meetings have started to receive targeted emails from Oona King’s campaign inviting them to the events.
Members in Islington – including those not signed up to Oona King’s email lists - have received an email inviting them to an event on Sunday from Kevin McKeever, one of Oona King’s campaign team. This email has also been received by members in Haringey. Oona King’s campaign has also sent an email from Mr McKeever to Haringey members about a meeting with Oona King moderated by the Times journalist David Aaronovitch taking place this week. Brent members have received an email from the King campaign in the name of Mr McKeever inviting them to a meet-the-members event on 28th August.
I understand that individuals who are no longer members of the party have received the emails from the Oona King campaign.
In all of these cases the emails have been received by members not signed up to the Oona King email list. In no cases are these the bulk emails each candidate is entitled to send out via the party – they are targeted emails sent direct from the Oona King campaign.
There may be other examples of such mailings.
What this shows is that Oona King has London Labour party membership data broken down by CLP or borough. As stated previously, the Westminster event indicates they have it broken down by gender. All this shows a degree of data held that goes way beyond that officially given to the two candidates under the rules.
There are a number of routes that can have lead to Oona King being able to email and post members using this degree of localised data.
One is that someone in the party machinery has given her the London Labour party membership data. This would be a serious offence for a member of staff and would run counter to the approach so far taken. But hitherto the party has avoided any impression of stitching up Ken Livingstone in the manner of the 1999-2000 selection fiasco and there is nothing to suggest that this has happened here.
A second would be that Oona King’s campaigns have been given the membership lists of the CLPs concerned by officers or local members. That would mean that those officers would be favouring her campaign by handing data to one candidate but not the other. The fact that the women’s mailing went out across the whole of London means that can surely be ruled out.
A third would be that a London-wide list was given to Oona King’s campaign by party bodies or individuals entitled to hold them and authorised to use them as they wish. The only likely contender for that is London’s two Labour MEPs, who – as politician with London-wide constituencies - are both entitled to contact all London members. MEPs’ possession of the full London membership lists led to Frank Dobson having a huge advantage in contacting members in 2000, causing one of the worst abuses of that selection. London Labour’s two MEPs are surely not going to want to repeat that experience.
If it is not these three routes Oona King’s campaign must have obtained the membership data through some other mechanism. Perhaps someone who previously held the information has passed it to them.
Everything points to Oona King having a London-wide Labour party membership list. It raises the question – who gave it to them? And if the person or people who handed membership lists over to Oona King were not authorised to do so would this not be a serious breach of party rules?
The current leadership candidates are operating under similar constraints as Ken Livingstone. They must use the agreed routes to reach people or build up their own bank of information based on the phone data provided by the party. It seems these rules do not apply to Oona King.
Like the leadership contenders the Mayoral candidates are entitled to five emails to party members. These are sent out by the party to those London members whose emails are held by the party. They are London-wide emails, not broken down by CLP or borough or any other segment of the party.
In addition the candidates are provided with the email addresses of CLP secretaries.
Earlier this month the candidates were provided with the names and phone numbers – but no other data – by the Labour party, following a decision to provide the same facility to leadership candidates nationally. The candidates are only allowed to use this information for the purpose of the mayoral selection.
If candidates wish to mail members they provide the artwork to the party’s appointed printer, who sends it out.
But in the last few days all the signs are that Oona King’s campaign has started to operate on the basis of membership data not available to both candidates.
Towards the end of last week women members of the party received emails inviting them to an Oona King event in Westminster on September 3rd, chaired by Guardian journalist Polly Toynbee. There are reports all over London that women who received the email include those who have not signed up to Oona King’s mailing list.
It does not seem that Oona King has simply compiled her own email list from publicly available emails. That would certainly apply to councillors’ email addresses, and she would be entitled to the CLP secretaries’ emails. But to compile a wider list she would have needed the permission of those who hold that information.
It is more likely that Oona King’s campaign is operating off membership Labour party membership data. Within the Westminster women’s meeting email, Oona King’s supporters – women MPs including an MP from outside London – promise to send the recipients a postal version of the invitation. Women members of the party have started to receive these mailings today.
That means that Oona King’s campaign has the postal addresses of party members, despite this not being given to the candidates by the party, and has data broken down by gender.
That email alone points to the possibility that Oona King has access to London Labour party membership lists – despite this not being given to Ken Livingstone.
The weekend added evidence to the likelihood that Oona King’s campaign has use of membership information not available to her fellow mayoral candidate.
Oona King’s campaign is organising a number of meet-the-members events in London in August. Party members in CLPs living near to these meetings have started to receive targeted emails from Oona King’s campaign inviting them to the events.
Members in Islington – including those not signed up to Oona King’s email lists - have received an email inviting them to an event on Sunday from Kevin McKeever, one of Oona King’s campaign team. This email has also been received by members in Haringey. Oona King’s campaign has also sent an email from Mr McKeever to Haringey members about a meeting with Oona King moderated by the Times journalist David Aaronovitch taking place this week. Brent members have received an email from the King campaign in the name of Mr McKeever inviting them to a meet-the-members event on 28th August.
I understand that individuals who are no longer members of the party have received the emails from the Oona King campaign.
In all of these cases the emails have been received by members not signed up to the Oona King email list. In no cases are these the bulk emails each candidate is entitled to send out via the party – they are targeted emails sent direct from the Oona King campaign.
There may be other examples of such mailings.
What this shows is that Oona King has London Labour party membership data broken down by CLP or borough. As stated previously, the Westminster event indicates they have it broken down by gender. All this shows a degree of data held that goes way beyond that officially given to the two candidates under the rules.
There are a number of routes that can have lead to Oona King being able to email and post members using this degree of localised data.
One is that someone in the party machinery has given her the London Labour party membership data. This would be a serious offence for a member of staff and would run counter to the approach so far taken. But hitherto the party has avoided any impression of stitching up Ken Livingstone in the manner of the 1999-2000 selection fiasco and there is nothing to suggest that this has happened here.
A second would be that Oona King’s campaigns have been given the membership lists of the CLPs concerned by officers or local members. That would mean that those officers would be favouring her campaign by handing data to one candidate but not the other. The fact that the women’s mailing went out across the whole of London means that can surely be ruled out.
A third would be that a London-wide list was given to Oona King’s campaign by party bodies or individuals entitled to hold them and authorised to use them as they wish. The only likely contender for that is London’s two Labour MEPs, who – as politician with London-wide constituencies - are both entitled to contact all London members. MEPs’ possession of the full London membership lists led to Frank Dobson having a huge advantage in contacting members in 2000, causing one of the worst abuses of that selection. London Labour’s two MEPs are surely not going to want to repeat that experience.
If it is not these three routes Oona King’s campaign must have obtained the membership data through some other mechanism. Perhaps someone who previously held the information has passed it to them.
Everything points to Oona King having a London-wide Labour party membership list. It raises the question – who gave it to them? And if the person or people who handed membership lists over to Oona King were not authorised to do so would this not be a serious breach of party rules?
The current leadership candidates are operating under similar constraints as Ken Livingstone. They must use the agreed routes to reach people or build up their own bank of information based on the phone data provided by the party. It seems these rules do not apply to Oona King.
I haven't signed up to Oona's campaign, and received both the email and the postal invitation. Interestingly they're definitely not using a current membership list; I moved house a few months ago (and notified the party) but the invite was sent to my old address.
ReplyDelete