Another day, another Neale Hanvey tweet: without a shred of irony, he blasts the Green Party of England & Wales as "just unbelievable" and "completely out of control" for expelling Shahrar Ali (actually a two-year suspension with conditions on re-entry)

UPDATE on Kafka Party: Surprise, Surprise! Today I've received notification of a two-year expulsion from the Green Party (plus other Kafkaesque conditions on readmission). They've sat on this decision for 4 weeks (in violation of our own rules), after already having been forced…

— Shahrar Ali (@ShahrarAli) December 12, 2024

It’s just unbelievable. It seems they are not only out of their depth but completely out of control. Keep up the sterling work Shahrar ✊

— Neale Hanvey ALBA🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿 (@JNHanvey) December 13, 2024

I'm sorry, Neale, but that comment is just astounding. What's happened to Shahrar is dreadful, but the Greens have actually treated him slightly more leniently than Alba treated Geoff Bush, myself and many others. When will you start speaking out about zealotry in your own party? https://t.co/8akPx0sHqG

— James Kelly (@JamesKelly) December 13, 2024

So are there any differences between Shahrar Ali and the people who have been purged from Alba?  I can only really think of one - Shahrar Ali didn't just criticise what his party's leadership were doing, he also took them to court.  Geoff Bush, myself and all the others that Mr McEleny has targeted for punitive action through the Alba "disciplinary" process have never done anything even remotely like that.

Incidentally, on the subject of the distinction between "expulsions" and "lengthy suspensions with conditions attached to re-entry", I heard on the grapevine recently that somebody who was supposedly "suspended for six months" by Alba (for a completely ludicrous reason, of course) got to the end of that six months, naturally assumed she'd automatically be able to resume her membership, but was instead informed by Mr McEleny that if she wanted to "rejoin" the party, she'd have to apply to the NEC for permission - which is precisely the same procedure as for someone who has been expelled or been deemed to have "publicly resigned from the party".  So it seems that in Alba, the distinction between suspension and expulsion is one of window-dressing only.

In case anyone wrongly assumes that only a relatively small percentage of the Alba membership is being affected by the McEleny Purges, I'd draw your attention to this comment on an earlier thread from a former Alba member - 

"James - you also have to bear in mind that the numbers of those who have left the Alba Party, either through resignation or stopping their subs, are considerably greater than those who have been expelled or suspended. Some of us were threatened in one way or another - with being expelled from a meeting for pressing a point, such as "where in the constitution does it say this?" We decided not to tolerate the kind of authoritarian and corrupt behaviour which seeks to pass constitutional amendments sight unseen by a conference (indeed some of us spoke out on this matter), but decides that competent constitutional amendments should not be seen by conference. The only effects of these competent constitutional amendments would have been:-

1) to permit Office Bearers to have a say about the work of HQ staff (rather than be dictated by the party chair and line managed by the unelected and unelectable General Secretary)

2) to prevent the General Secretary from redirecting complaints to himself, instead of referring them on to the Disciplinary Committee

3) to ensure that the correct representation on the Conference Committee was adhered to, according to the party constitution, so that NEC members could not dominate.

Of course, other matters, such as the dominance of that committee by the party chair and the failure of that committee to elect a chair on an annual basis, were more difficult to deal with, because of space on the conference agenda!"

Oh for pity's sake, what is happening to this party? If you're going to find wedge issues, does it really have to be "we must be much more respectful to Donald Trump" and "it's not racist to make asylum seekers more destitute"? https://t.co/RJdSShoeEX

— James Kelly (@JamesKelly) December 13, 2024