Posts
Labour Leadership: Moving Back the Goalposts AND Challenging the PLP Hegemony?
Susan Press is urging Constituency Parties to meet the June 8th deadline for submitting rule changes with an amendment aiming to reduce the number of MPs needed by 40%, from 12.5% to 7.5%.
This is a good idea. But surely we could and should expect the party of democracy, inclusion, equality to go further?
This is the existing clause 4B Procedural rules for elections for national officers of the Party.Paragraph 4B.2b(1) :
"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."
After "supported by" add colon and form list which reads as follows:
(i) 7.5% of the commons members of the PLP; or
i.e. delete 12.5 and insert 7.5
and insert
(ii) 20 CLP GCs drawn from at least three regions; or
(iii) 7.5% of levy paying Trade Union members in OMOV
And delete "this threshold" and replace with "at least one of these three thresholds, none of which shall have preeminence," to give:
Nominations not attaining at least one of these three thresholds, none of which shall have preeminence, shall be null and void.
The whole would then read:
4B Procedural rules for elections for national officers of the Party.
Paragraph 4B.2b(1)
"In the case of a vacancy for leader or deputy leader, each nomination must be supported:
(i) by 7.5 per cent of the Commons members of the PLP; or
(ii) by 20 CLP GCs drawn from at least three regions; or
(iii) by 7.5% of levy paying Trade Union members in OMOV;
Nominations not attaining at least one of these three thesholds, none of which shall have preeminence, shall be null and void."
I would also suggest this be sent to NEC urgently with a request that it be sponsored as an NEC amendment. This means it could be discussed this year in Brighton, rather than next year in Manchester.
I would also support a similar amendment for the rules in case of there not being a vacancy but there being a challenge. Say 20%, 60 and 20% respectively. Tony Benn's challenge to Neil Kinnock when there was no vacancy led us to this sorry pass.
Changing only the PLP threshold is accepting the hegemony of the PLP when we all know that PLP members rely on the winner of any contest for their progress in the government, for nomination to other bodies, and even to an extent for re-selection for their seats.
4 comments:
Chris, one step at a time. Don't disagree but this modest step will take 12months to get on the agenda......
I don't understand. What would be the reason to delay? This will count as one rule change either way. And if it did have to be one step at a time then giving CLPs a nomination would be far more important than changing the MP number.
Getting over 45 or whatever the threshold is after the GE is not impossible with the right combination of strategy, programme and candidate.
If the NEC adopt it (or similar) it can be on the agenda this year as well.
You write your comment as if you are she who must be obeyed by the way!! Did CLPD or CLGA discuss a resolution with these other elements? Or did Peter just come up with this one?
The principle of not having just PLP triggering candidacies in the event of a vacancy at least is far more important to me than whether it is 12.5 or 7.5%. I also think the principle is hard to resist.
I'm with Susan here. Seems very sensible, in a tactical sense.
Besides, I would argue that stable government is often more important than having a better one. We wouldn't want Labour to do a thatcher, even if it is someone like Blair we're talking about.
If you mean not changing the principle for a challenge with no vacancy I can live without that certainly, whereas any change in that would be enough to spike it as far as the PTB are concerned.
But in case of a vacancy why should only the PLP nominate. They have a conflict of interest.
Post a Comment