Labour’s annual conference voted on Tuesday on the rule-change to reduce the nomination threshold for nominations in leadership contests from 15% to 10%. The result, announced in Wednesday’s CAC (Conference Arrangements Committee) report, was a huge majority of almost 90% in favour of the change, in spite of opposition by the party’s right.
The biggest majority was among Labour’s union affiliates. The exact results were as follows:
The party’s impending ‘democracy review’ will look at the option of extending the 10% threshold beyond Labour MPs and MEPs to both members and affiliates. Those who wish to ensure that a left candidate can always be on the ballot in future leadership elections will be eager to see that chance take place.
In the interim, the reduction to 10% of parliamentary and European members is a huge and welcome victory for Labour’s majority left.
The SKWAWKBOX needs your support. This blog is provided free of charge but depends on the generosity of its readers to be viable. If you can afford to, please click here to arrange a one-off or modest monthly donation via PayPal. Thanks for your solidarity so this blog can keep bringing you information the Establishment would prefer you not to know about.
Good news! But if Labour wins a GE and has over 300 MPs, 10% means that leadership candidates will need over 30 nominations. Jeremy initially only got 10 genuine nominations and struggled to get all 35 (which he only got because MPs didn’t think he’d win).
My argument is that it’s the diverse membership who are more representative of the electorate than the few MPs in their Westminster bubble. My CLP, Stroud, agreed with this and asked our conference delegates to vote accordingly.
Oops. Meant that we asked our conference delegates to vote for a reduction to 5%. Pity they weren’t given this opportunity.
True – but a winnable vote on 10% is better than one on 5% likely to be defeated as the unions were not as likely to back it
That’s why the democracy review is looking at – and will hopefully put to conference next year – extending the 10% threshold to unions and members as well
Agreed. Tinkering with the nomination threshold within the current rule structure makes the goalposts a little wider but, as you point out, the new threshold is almost certainly not enough of a safety margin, given the current composition of the PLP/MEPs, and it feels like the wrong approach in principle.
I think there should be two new slots on leader/deputy election slates for candidates that do not require any PLP/MEP nominations: one for a candidate chosen by CLPs nominations and one for a candidate chosen by an all-members ballot in advance of the corresponding election (technology makes all-members ballots so cheap that they can no longer be argued against on the grounds of cost).
This way, no single group (PLP/MEPs, CLPs or membership) would have the power to exclude the preferred candidate of any other group.
I’d also go further and give CLPs and grassroots petitions the power to force sitting leaders/deputies to face re-election. Right now, only the PLP can challenge a sitting leader or deputy who won’t stand down, CLPs and membership have no effective say in the matter. Watson is grim proof of this fact; he should’ve been deposed long ago and would have been, had he been forced to face re-election.
This reduction of the nomination threshold is a step in vaguely the right direction but the entire movement behind Jeremy is still hanging by a procedural thread under the current rule system.
Jeremy’s opponents in the party want to return to the old electoral college system (they openly state as much), which would exclude truly left wing candidates from the slate *and* dilute membership influence in actual vote.
If Jeremy stepped down tomorrow, they would almost certainly get their way under the current rules, even with the reduced nomination threshold.
one step at a time one step at a time , 2018 ?