Sunday, 27 May 2007

NO MORE CORONATIONS!

Procedure is dull but it has to be done right if we're ever going to get anywhere. Rule changemotions are currently the only way to make things different and avoid another stitch-up like the recent leadership fiasco.
June 8 is the deadline for CLPs to submit. If your branch or GC isn't meeting before then, circulate to anyone else you know who can help get this through. . Calder Calley CLP has already done this, ticked all the boxes, and our delegate will be arguing our case at Manchester in 2008 - yes it takes a year to get on the agenda. You will need a Constitutional Amendment Form . Labour Party national Contact Renee Finan 0207 783 1374.Can I also urge all CLPs to affilate to the Campaign For Labour Party Democracy - CLPD. Their main man, Pete Willsman, iso on the NEC and knows the rule book inside out!

Proposed rule change:
4B Procedural rules for elections for national officers of the Party.
Paragraph 4B.2b(1)
Nomination reads as follows
In the case of a vacancy for leader or deputy leader, each nomination must be supported by 12.5 per cent of the Commons members of the PLP. Nominations not attaining this threshold shall be null and void."
Amendment: Delete 12.5 and insert 7.5

Points to stress: This isn't about individuals, it's about democracy.Party members have just been denied a vote and a candidate reflecting a significant strand of opinion within the Party. They have been disenfranchised.In effect, the MPs have had a political veto.
The original 1981 threshold was a modest 5 percent which was raised in 1988 by Neil Kinnock ( to stop the Left, basically) . Ensuring a a contest engages the wider public and gives the Party more credibility .....Gordon Brown's coronation will not exactly help his case come the next Election.

9 comments:

Doctor Dunc said...

Thanks for giving the full details of this. We don't have a CLP meeting until after the 'deadline'. What's the procedural reason for the tight deadline?

el Tom said...

Here here. totally agree with this campaign.

Commissar said...

Excellent campaign, I'll be sure to raise it at my next CLP meeting

Doctor Dunc said...

I think the title is spot on too: we are where we are now, of course - but there must never be an uncontested leadership election again.

Curlew said...

Thanks Grim. I presume the cut off date is to do with Conference submissions? I've forwarded it to my CLP sec but we don't meet till the 4th week in June.

Snedds said...

Why 7.5% (other than it's just below what Old McDonnell recieved in terms of support at present. If we are serious about a proper contest for the sake of democracy then why not abolish the need for any PLP nominations at all?

Doctor Dunc said...

Hi Snedds - I think the 7.5% suggestion is primarily one of expediency: it's a battle we can win, as well as fight. I agree that the PLP shouldn't be alone in putting a barrier to nominatins, and resolutions along the lines of allowing other bodies to nominate and them being of equal worth (i.e. a certain number of CLPs or unions = 7.5% of the PLP) then I would be supportive of that, but it should be as a seperate measure so as not to diminish the 7.5% suggestion's chances of being passed.

Chris Paul said...

Why should widening the nomination base be a separate issue? It's the same rule we need to change. Got some support for this at DL hustings in MCR from candidates and representatives though Benn's man hung up on the T&G being able to get someone on the ballot on their own ... which is avoidable ...

Chris Paul said...

PS Allowing CLPs and affiliates to nominate is far more important IMO that changing the PLP threshold. We need to take their hegemony away not fiddle with the figures. 45 or so is not an insumountable target for the right strategy, programme and candidate to overcome ... but giving craven MPs the monopoly is a far greater problem for democracy IMO that 12.5%.

Which FTSE 100 company has the top 300 workers picking the CEO? Rather than the shareholders?