More questions for Oona King's campaign...

Previously we reported questions arising from how Oona King had been able to contact London Labour members using information not given to both candidates by the party. This story has now made it into the Evening Standard today.

Many party members have contacted Oona King’s campaign directly after receiving emails from Kevin McKeever of her campaign team, asking how Oona King’s campaign obtained their personal information. London Labour members have now started to receive replies from Mr McKeever.

He writes:
“The Oona King campaign has sourced email contact data from a range of legitimate sources, including affiliate organisations, campaigning groups and informal networks of Labour Party members.”

Many are not satisfied. But Mr McKeever’s reply raises a new question. He says that contact data has been sourced from affiliate organisations. Most affiliated organisations are trade unions. Two are backing Oona King – Usdaw and Community. The overwhelming majority are backing Ken Livingstone. Traditionally the unions do not pass their membership data to anyone else. That is because they are free-standing organisations with their own obligations to their members.

Other affiliates are generally not backing any candidate – the Fabian Society and the Co-operative party have made no recommendations for example.

Kevin McKeever’s reply begs the question – is he saying Community and Usdaw handed over their membership details to Oona King? And what other affiliates’ data is implied in the response from Kevin McKeever?

Contacting the members - one law for Oona King, another for Ken Livingstone?

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.

Healthy debate...

‘In terms of health inequalities – as you all know the mayor has no direct, or actually even indirect powers in the area of health and certainly no strategic powers in the area of health...’

Oona King in Brixton on Wednesday 18th August

Actually the Mayor does have powers over health; ‘The GLA Act 2007 extended the Mayor’s powers in relation to a number of key areas of public policy and decision-making, including housing, planning, health inequalities and climate change, and the Further Education and Training Act 2007 gave the Mayor new powers in relation to skills.3 Through these mechanisms the Mayor can exert significant power and influence over transport, policing, fire and emergency planning and economic development in London.’ 

Click here for more. 

And it may surprise Oona to know that the Mayors responsibilities include prepare a strategy to tackle London’s health inequalities and promote the reduction of health inequalities in London.

The Mayor even has a Health Adviser. Perhaps Oona should give her a call and find out a little more about this area of the Mayors office.
 

Oona's night with the bloggers

On 29th July Oona’s team invited bloggers to a special  briefing. Days later this was cancelled and a new invitation  was issued for the 16th August.

A number of reports have put the total attendance on the night at 2, possibly 3, bloggers who turned up to a hotel room in Battersea. And for the 2 or 3 people who did turn up it seems like the reception wasn’t exactly warm.

For a full report read Bad Conscience.

 

Know your history

Oona says she is Labour ‘through and through’ but thinks Labour was only in power for 12 years in the 20th century.

 

She recently said, ‘There is nothing that guarantees the Labour Party going forward in the future we will be one of the two big parties in government, just look at the last century - Labour was in power for just 12 years,’ at the Newham Mayoral hustings on the 21^st July.

 

But even excluding the pre-1945 period, Labour has been in power for over 19 years – 45-51, 64-70, 74-79 & 97-2000.

 

Oh dear that’s a third of Labour’s time in power airbrushed from history...