• I WAS sorry to see that some neighbourhood organisations were upset that some councillors had not been re-selected to stand for Labour in the May elections, (Somers Town Neighbour-hood Forum members were shocked at the deselection of Paul Tomlinson, December 17).

I understand their concern and personally liked some of the councillors who did not make it through the re-selection.

I would just like to assure any of the CNJ’s readers of the fairness of the process. As someone who participated in the re-selections (in a minor way) I will, of course, make no comment on any of those whom we saw. But it is important to understand how the process was conducted.

For a start each panel that interviewed the candidates had an independent chair. The chairs were from outside Camden, all of whom kindly gave up their time to hear the cases.

Each person wanting to stand could submit a statement of why they wished to represent their community. The panel also had reports from the whips, who are appointed by Camden’s Labour councillors to ensure that Labour policies get implemented, after they have been discussed.

The secretaries of the wards that each candidate represented also submitted a report on how they had fulfilled their duties to the area; the campaigns they had conducted and how well they had taken up the cases of local people.

All of this was read and digested by each panel before they heard from the candidates themselves. They were given around 45 minutes to make their case: some took longer and some shorter. The panel then deliberated on each of the candidates before reaching a judgment.

The outcome was communicated to the candidates, who then had the option of appealing to the Regional Labour Party. Some took this up. But no one in Camden had any say in these final judgments.

This is how these decisions were reached. Based on the system we adopted and the limited sample of cases I participated in, I believe that this procedure was scrupulously fair.

MARTIN PLAUT
NW5