I am currently in the process of contacting several other CLPs who have tabled the following resolution on the leadership for Manchester 2008. Our constituency secretary will be writing, if possible, to every CLP in the country (please send me your details if you can) and as many trade union branches (ditto).What is this about?
Well, first off it's not about toppling Brown or stalking horses. This is a serious attempt to ensure that NEXT time round we have a leadership and deputy leadership contest in which all wings of the Party can participate. Which means left, right and centre. It would be utterly disingenuous, of course, to deny that it would not benefit someone like John McDonnell . But likewise Jon Cruddas, Alan Milburn, Charles Clarke, or whichever MP is left to stand after the next General Election or whenever.We sent this off a year ago (you have to wait two years to get rule changes debated)
But in the light of what has happened to the Party since then its appeal is clear and all-embracing. It is up to us, the grassroots, to ensure this resolution is debated, listened to and voted on. The rest of the Conference will be a talking-shop. This resolution could, literally, save the Labour Party from oblivion. Dull as it may sound.......My e-mail SsPre2@aol.com
Proposed rule change:4B Procedural rules for elections for national officers of the Party.Paragraph 4B.2b(1)Nomination reads as followsIn 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
Posts
10 comments:
Congrats on becoming Mayor!
Helen Ingram
PD I'm on facebook now but dunno how to get my photo on these sort of blogs yet - will find out!
Back to CNN to watch Obama's returns...
Susan,
What's your view on three LRC supporting MPs, David Drew, David Hamiliton and Robert Wareing, voting for the 22 week abortion limit? I know it was down to conscience, but I am interested in your view.
And yet again, all three of these MP's voted for the anti-gay stance - along with Austin Mitchell, Mike Wood and Ronnie Campbell.
And would you believe self-styled feminist Clare Short?
This is the problem I have with the Left or some aspects of it - this puritan element which really can't handle gay rights at all. Many on the New Labour wing have far less of a problem with progressive stances! Why??
Oh, and Drew actually voted for a 12 week abortion limit too...
Tough one really. Abortion is one of those areas which can't be divided on traditional left/right lines. I do understand why some MPs have an issue of conscience. I support abortion rights. If peolehave strict religious views, it's not that simple.
Maybe. But to be honest, I don't think that strict religious views which make people anti-gay are compatible with being left wing. I suppose I am predominantly a cultural leftist/progressive - a radical social libertarian.
I don't really relate to those who are economically left and socially traditionalist
What about the gay issue though, Susan - is there really a place within the LRC for people who shun gay and lesbian equality? Drew's voting record is atrocious - so is David Taylor's.
No place for that I would have thought, no.
If a candidate cannot get 12.5% of the PLP to back them they could not possibly be an effective party leader, discuss.
I would support the other two corners of the electoral college i.e. Affiliates and CLPs having a means of nomination rather than dropping the limit in the rulebook for PLP.
Imagine how you'd feel if a swivel-eyed right winger got on the ballot against the wishes of the PLP with just eight nominations (if Sky TV projection comes true) and was then swept to victory by the Unions or right wing CLPs and grass rooters?
New Labour have used the rule book amendments of the left to win through. Beware!
Well Chris we've got to reduce the firm grasp the PLP has on the leadership election somehow. We are in danger of having the least effective internal democracy as far as elected leaders/deputy leaders is concerned of the main parties, after having been the pioneers in this. We effectively have the Tory veto on who stands (only we can, and did, give the party only one candidate, whereas they must give it two - unless only one stands) and then the PLP is hugely dominant in the electoral college as well (not only do they have 3 votes, their PLP vote is worth many hundred times more than their others).
So in answer to your imagined scenario - if the system cannot elected a candidate who would not have been the choice of MPs, then the process is pointless and we'd be as well to return to the cheaper pre-1981 approach. We do not include members and trade unionists for good PR or to make us feel good about the world; we do it because we believe in democracy and that extending democracy leads to better decisions.
Post a Comment