Correct decision, especially after their activists were found innocent of the offence that supposedly justified the proscription!

Would be nice if we also got rid of the idea of these brilliant Machiavellian advisers.

This really calls into question the decision to proscribe them. This was the most serious thing they were accused of, and core to justifying proscription. Now they’ve been cleared, the proscription should be lifted.

Accuracy.

Indeed. Sounds like they’re aware of this but aren’t moving that quickly on it:

The government says its leasehold reforms will build on planned changes to make service charge bills clearer and help people challenge unfair costs.

Just had a quick browse throught the full draft document and it suggests that they’re going to give tenants more visibility and control over leasehold charges, but I don’t really know enough about the issue to be able to say how that will shake out in practice.

Europe? I don’t know her.

‘The PLP has representatives on the NEC’ is true (but not in dispute).

‘The PLP is part of the NEC’ is false.

You’ve used one source, Wikipedia, which while very useful for many applications, is not a good primary source. Even this source does not say what you need it to, viz., that the PLP is part of the NEC. I have to say, if I was leaning on a source that doesn’t say what I need it to say, I might at that point consider quietly logging off for a bit.

Here is a primary source, the Labour Party Rulebook for 2026, which refers to the PLP and the NEC as separate entitites several times, most relevantly at Clause VIII (p.11 of the PDF), which describes the make-up of the committee. You will note that it does not at any point say that the PLP is part of the NEC. It does say that representatives from the PLP will serve on the NEC - again, not in dispute, but also not proof of your point, as my several examples above demonstrate.

While I didn’t cite any sources previously, I did cite those examples, none of which are in dispute (or you’d have disputed them), which clearly show that your argument (which I would gloss as ‘having representatives from Body A on Body B makes Body A part of Body B’), is false, and I will continue to say so unless I am provided with a single source suggesting otherwise. If your logic operated, then it would be correct to say that GMB is part of the NEC because it sends representatives to the Committee. However, this is not the case (and, again, you haven’t disputed this, because you know it’s not the case).

I have of course seen Venn diagrams, which often show the ways in which organisations overlap. However, they do not show that larger organisations are considered to be parts of smaller organisations if they share representatives. This is partly because this just isn’t the case but it’s also because that’s not really what Venn diagrams are for: they show all overlapping relationships between different things but, as we have seen, an overlapping relationship does not necessarily mean that thing A is part of thing B.

Note however that, even if it is conceptually possible, the PLP is still not part of the NEC, which is an easily verifiable statement of fact. Again, I refer you to the Labour Party rulebook and indeed to your own source, which lists several subcommittees that are part of the NEC, a list which does not include the PLP.

Firstly, I’m not sure that it’s possible, even conceptually, for a larger body (like the PLP) to be part of a smaller body (like the NEC).

The NEC and the PLP have overlapping memberships, but they are different organisations with different (even if overlapping) memberships and different purposes. They have different agendas (as in, literally), they have different structures, they operate under different rules. That the PLP sends members to the NEC does not make it part of the NEC. Affiliated trade unions also send members to the NEC, but those unions are not part of the NEC. The NEC has several subcommittees; those subcommittees are part of the NEC, in that they answer to it. The PLP is not one of these.

I’m wary of muddying the waters by introducing examples, but I feel the following are illustrative.

Sticking to Parliament for the moment: the Cabinet is currently composed almost exclusively of members of the PLP*. Nevertheless, the PLP is not part of the Cabinet, as I’m sure you would agree: they are different organisations with different (even if overlapping) memberships, different roles, different procedures, etc. Neither is part of the other, despite having members in common.

By virtue of the exact same type of relationship, the PLP is not part of the NEC.

Again, and still sticking with the Cabinet: the Cabinet is part of (because it’s a committee of) the Privy Council. However, this does not operate in the opposite direction: no one would say that, because every member of the Cabinet is also on the Privy Council, that means that the Privy Council is part of the Cabinet.

We can also see this in the frontbench: every member of the Cabinet is also by definition on the frontbench either of the Commons or of the Lords. However, it could not be said that the frontbench is part of the Cabinet: it’s separate from and indeed subordinate to it. I think you could describe the Cabinet as part of the frontbench, though this would be unusual, probably because the frontbench isn’t really an organised committee or grouping (I don’t think it holds separate meetings or has a chair of any kind except insofar as the Prime Minister is obviously in charge of it), even though it obviously ‘contains’ the Cabinet in a sense. I’m not too concerned about this, really, because I don’t think it does anything to my overall argument; I’m just mentioning it for the sake of completeness.

As these examples show, overlapping memberships - even when they completely overlap in one direction - do not alone make one body/organisation part of another. We’ve also seen that one body electing members to another does not make the first body a part of the second (otherwise e.g., GMB would be part of the NEC). Furthermore, it doesn’t seem possible or coherent for a larger body to be part of a smaller one.

So. Some people are members of both the PLP and the NEC. This does not mean that the PLP is part of the NEC.

*It has a few Peers who, despite being both Labour members and part of Parliament (the House of Lords), are not part of the PLP. Incidentally, the Cabinet also sends members to the NEC, but it is not part of the NEC.

A member of the PLP might be a part of the NEC, yes. This is not the same thing as the PLP, being part of the NEC (obviously).

For example, if you asked John McDonnell if he was a member of the PLP, he would say yes. If you asked him if he was a member of the NEC, he would say no. This is because the PLP is not part of the NEC.

It’s not ‘fair’ to say that it’s part of the NEC, because it isn’t. They’re separate organisations.

Yes, it includes representatives of the PLP. This is not the same thing as the PLP being part of the NEC.

Worst person in the country joins worst party in the country.

They could call it ‘the Burnham rule’, for short.

Joking aside, you are right, of course. It’s actually a big deal for (e.g.) the Mayor of Greater Manchester to quit, so it makes perfect sense to have a committee that can say ‘Hang on, is this actually a good idea?’

Additionally, as anyone who recalls the leaderships of Iain Duncan Smith and Liz Truss could tell you, party member driven democracy has its downsides.

The PLP is a part of the NEC.

No, it isn’t.

This exactly. As someone who wants Starmer out ASAP, I was half-minded to support Burnham just to achieve that goal, but it’s not like he was covering himself in glory, here. He had an opportunity to run as an MP just 18 months ago and decided not to take it. What’s changed since then - other than he now has a shot at PM?

Look, I try not to bother with this kind of content-free ‘comment’ but just factually, this was a matter for the NEC, not the PLP, something it says at the top of the page you wrote this comment on. Given you can’t even get this kind of simple fact straight, what makes you think that your views on the far more complex topic of Labour’s founding principles (or how they’re viewed today) are of any value to anyone?

There was basically nothing Starmer could do to come out of this looking good. Block a leadership contender from standing? Looks weak. Let someone come and challenge you because you’re scared you’ll look weak if you don’t? Also looks weak!

Does anyone genuinely think Burnham’s open challenge to Starmer’s leadership wasn’t a factor in blocking him?

It was definitely a factor but it wasn’t the only factor. If I was on the NEC and I thought it was a slam dunk to win the mayoralty again, I might have argued for letting Burnham back into Parliament. Since it clearly isn’t, I’d have voted to block him. The other thing about your rhetorical question is that it’s easy to turn it around: ‘Does anyone genuinely think that Burnham’s professional ambitions weren’t the primary factor in his decision to stand?’

I would also love a bit of Chaos with Ed, but apparently he isn’t actually interested any longer.

Yeah, it’s pretty good. Definitely has a pro-Labour bias (naturally!) but it’s independent from the party, so it publishes a fair bit that’s critical of the leadership, too.

I really would prefer it if you could get more than one post into a discussion before you start making baseless suppositions about what I think and why I think it.

Nothing but respect for my short king/mayor.