By a Hackney Labour member

Once considered a hotbed of political activism, Hackney Labour, emboldened by  London Labour Region, has seemingly given up on its cool credentials and surrendered to apparent demands to boot out councillors with a moral compass.

Much like colleagues in Greenwich, Hillingdon and Brent, three Hackney councillors who responded to residents’ calls for a ceasefire in Gaza (this being the only way to free Israeli hostages and cease the genocide in Palestine) will see their tenure brought to an end in 2026.  This move is apparently based in the fact that they had the gall to represent constituents’ views and sign a letter calling for a ceasefire.  They then represented these views in a council meeting  by way of abstaining or voting to hear a Green Party motion calling for a ceasefire.  Unlike the Mayor of London and councils like Burnley, Luton, Bedford and Islington, Hackney fell short of the mark in recognising the urgent need for a political response similar to one it had initiated in relation to Ukraine.

As a result of London Labour Region-led selection processes, in October 2025 the group of councillors were deemed no longer fit for purpose. This is  despite racking up almost 30 years of diligent service between them.  It’s a scenario being repeated across London, whereby an elitist cabal of Starmerites continue to perpetuate Party officials’ alleged desire to ‘shake off the fleas’, the ‘fleas’  in these cases largely being working class, black or Muslim councillors.  Within all of this there is unquestionably another Forde Report in the making, but with the government increasingly  positioning itself to the extremes of the right, the opportunity is unlikely to arise any time soon.

The reports submitted to London Region by Hackney Labour are felt to have played a significant role in the outcomes for the deselected councillors.  They reportedly received intentionally damaging errors in their reports; one councillor raised this with Hackney officials in advance of their selection interview, but heard nothing back.  Surprisingly, two councillors who followed suit in abstaining on the Gaza motion managed to be reselected, there being reports of them pleading ignorance and regret for their actions to Hackney Labour officials before the selection process began.

In terms of selection interviews being an equal and fair process, concerns have been raised about their  structure and the motivations of interviewers.  Councillors were advised that every candidate would be asked exactly the same questions; but having accessed records of some of the participants it seems this was not the case.  In addition it has been suggested that the Gaza vote was not raised by the panel at all in the case of one councillor who abstained, was reselected and now holds  a senior position on Hackney’s Labour group. 

Councillor  Clare Joseph, one of the three deselected councillors, was blocked at the panel stage while on maternity leave but  managed to appeal and get through to the final selections.  History suggests this is a common approach from Region whereby one of a group of perceived ‘ne’er do wells’ is let through the first stage in order to counter criticisms and, in her case eliminate an equality challenge in relation to her pregnancy. Needless to say, she was deselected after a group of right wing Hackney councillors organised against her in what many feel was an undemocratic selection meeting, dragging in never before seen family members to bolster their aims.  It’s been suggested that members openly in support of Cllr Joseph were unable to  gain entry to the meeting, despite Region-appointed organisers reportedly extending start times in other wards to ensure members to gain access. In addition to this, a member allied to Cllr Joseph whose wi-fi cut out briefly, was told he was no longer allowed to vote. The councillors selected for her ward had little history of supporting any part of the local community – a recurring theme across the borough for many of the newly selected candidates.

Being a councillor has always been founded on the principle of being a voice for those you serve.  The framing of interview questions supports this.  Despite this need, the body of Hackney councillors is increasingly made up of those who have worked in Regional offices, for an MP or the central Labour Party.  This doesn’t necessarily mean the best person is selected, rather that those selected have a face that fits.

Councillor Adejare made an in-time appeal request to London Labour, submitting an interim statement outlining her councillorship and seeking specific advice on the appeal process.  She also highlighted a related disability.  Having received no response she followed this up. Within this timeframe, her statement was intentionally taken as a de facto appeal, and she received a subsequent rejection notice, despite it not containing a response to reasons for refusal. A few councillors sent  statements of support to Region all of which were responded to.  To this day, Councillor  Adejare has never received a response to her initial request or had an appeal considered by Region. 

The third  councillor, M. Can Ozsen’s experience of both his panel interview and appeal are also highly problematic.  Concerns arose largely because interviewers were felt to manipulate his words to reach a desired outcome, something that was said to be repeated in  the appeal process.  In one instance he highlighted that due to a disability and related surgery he had been unable to attend in-person meetings but had continued to contribute via online access.  His rejection notice suggested he “did not understand the importance of in person meetings”, seemingly ignoring his ongoing commitment to participation during a period of immobility.   

His outcome notice also suggested there were concerns about him not expressing regret about breaking the whip despite there apparently being no related  question put to him, the focus instead being on understanding collective decision making.  The interview panel also stated that he had not returned to council duties, despite his making clear that he had resumed activities including widescale canvassing.  His case was supported by  Executive officers from his ward, councillors and Hackney South CLP who passed a related motion. True to form, Region remained silent.

There is clearly a pattern in how London Labour Region officials work.  There is also criticism of them operating opaquely and oppressively with there being no processes available to members to hold them to account.

In looking at these cases, London Labour Region appears to have been given a green light by the NEC to manage Hackney selections in a way which would not mirror accepted practice in any other arena. It  must be remembered that the concerted attempt to remove councillors they deem as ‘unacceptable’ is not unique, but is being replicated in boroughs  they view as having the capacity to maintain Labour majorities.  In this sleight of hand, the deselection of a few sitting councillors, alongside pervasive and autocratic demands for silence from selected candidates, is deemed acceptable collateral damage, with Labour voters continuing to be taken for granted.

This positioning means that Labour seats lost in Hackney are seen as irrelevant despite the growing threat of Zoe Garbett, the Green’s candidate for Mayor in 2026, who amid declining Labour votes fell short in 2023 by just over 9,000 votes. Over the past two years, Garbett has been able to capitalise on Hackney Labour’s failure to read the room outside of the comfort of its political bubble. Like some councils, it has failed to call out the pittance being thrown at it by the Labour government, alongside its demonisation of people on benefits and migrants. As long as it continues to enact Labour austerity in one of the most deprived and diverse boroughs in  London, this, together with its delayed response to the Gaza situation, the rise of Independent councillors and its inability to tackle inequality will leave a number of Labour councillors who toed the London Labour line vulnerable.

Interference of London Labour Region in Hackney is nothing new. In 2023, under the direction of Pearleen Sangha (now Reeve’s Business Engagement Lead), it mounted a coup in Hackney North, removing all the elected, mainly left wing, CLP Officers and replacing them with three right wing ‘interim’ officers, with  sole control of convening Party meetings. Behind the move lay a desire, many feel, to suppress discussion of the arrest and subsequent conviction of former councillor Tom Dewey following his arrest for possessing indecent images of children – and critically of the safeguarding failings involved.

In response to the perceived lack of action and in recognition of the damage the Dewey case was doing to the local Party, councillors Joseph and Ozsen were also amongst six councillors who voted to hear a Green Party motion which, legitimately, called for an independent enquiry.  Disciplinary action on the Gaza vote also extended to this vote.  In response to Region’s naïve directions to Hackney which facilitated an unwillingness to commit to an immediate review, amid a slew of ongoing public criticism and commentary,  three councillors crossed the floor and now sit as independents.

Anyone who has  come up against the machinery of Labour Regional apparatchiks, often overseen by careerists keen to climb the greasy pole,  will know that it does not centre the needs of the average member at the heart of its work.   It’s time for members to call for change in these processes and the management of our CLPs. It must be change that works to wrestle decisions which should be made locally from the grubby hands of London Labour Region.

Image: London Borough of Hackney https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hackney_UK_locator_map.svg Source: Greater London UK district map (blank).svg. Author: Greater London UK district map (blank).svg: Nilfanion, created using Ordnance Survey data derivative work: Renly (talk), licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license.