Report of today’s NEC outcomes

nec header

While the mainstream media have been running speculation and rumours for their own political agendas, the SKWAWKBOX has held off until facts and decisions could be reported. Below is an outline of key points from today’s meeting of Labour’s National Executive Committee (NEC) as they stand.

Leadership nominations

Building on last year’s plan to change the nominations required for Labour leadership elections, a threshold for nominations is on the table and will go to a vote on Saturday. The plan is:

  • 10% of parliamentary and European parliamentary (which the UK has MEPs) plus
  • 5% of union affiliates plus
  • 5% of CLP members

It is expected to pass. A fuller analysis of the significance and impact of the change will be published separately shortly.

Parliamentary selections

In every constituency, members will be able to initiate a selection process with a threshold of just 30% by either CLP or unions – union members who are also affiliates will be eligible to vote in either section. A final vote on this will take place on Saturday and is expected to pass. Such a low threshold should mean no CLP is ever unable to trigger a full new selection process if it wishes.

Selection will then be by OMOV (one member one vote) – in this stage, union members who are also affiliates will be eligible to vote in one role only.

A more detailed analysis of the reselection plan will be published shortly.

Policy and local govt

The review of policy making & local gov to continue. No concrete recommendations yet

Code of Conduct/free speech

The discussion and vote regarding the full statement of protection on free speech has been rescheduled for the October NEC meeting.

Other changes

A total of seven sets of rule changes will be put to a be vote at Conference, which begins on Sunday. More details to follow.

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.

If you wish to reblog this post for non-commercial use, you are welcome to do so – see here for more.

10 responses to “Report of today’s NEC outcomes

  1. Parliamentary Selection – Disappointed, I would have preferred that every PLP member or PPC should periodically be subject to an automatic re-selection process.

    Remove the inevitable animosity that comes with a trigger ballot and just make the periodic election of those who are to represent us as parliamentary candidates just part of the normal processes of the party

  2. Parliamentary selection change is deeply depressing but I knew it would happened. That shows, unfortunatly, that the labour party still isn’t a people party. This NEC autocrates, as leftists as they are, are depriving the members of their radical ideas once the latter is mainly all but certain to pass, and that in order to confort their elites (in this case the blairites again) and that, to me, proove by all means that the revolution will not come from UK, even if Corbyn becomes PM because it (labour) lacks the courage and the audacity to actually stand up to its words even when it has all it needs to do the right thing. That is an utter shame and such a hearth breaking waist.

    • The Labour Party is not a revolutionary party.

      It’s still worth fighting for though, especially if it creates decent lives for the working class instead of the deaths from austerity that we have now.

      Things can always be built upon.

  3. Concerning nominations for Leader I advocated 5 or 10 percent of MPs and/or 5 or 10 percent of CLPs and or 5 or 10 percent of affiliates but parity between each of the three, the model offered makes MPs a bit more adult than members but I would move an amendment to reduce the 10% of MPs to 5% for EQUALITY then could live with this. Hope OMOV members in every town/city get to vote for the Labour Council Leader then members could decide on candidates IDEAS rather than Labour Groups wheeling and dealing for posts “Council Cretinism” and patronage – why should socialists be wary of being selected by the MANY on ideas!

  4. Parliamentary Selections seems a bit of an improvement if not a compromise (Trigger+) but what do the socialist stars of tomorrow who burst with ideas do – do they have to play the garbage ‘bourgeois socialist’ game of wheeling and dealing “Parliamentary Cretinism” – this seems to rely on a negative act when perhaps they want a positive act – I want to fight for working people in this area AND THESE ARE MY IDEAS – judge me on these!
    Open Selections sounds much better!
    I don’t think some get the potential democratic revolution that is needed under Jeremy – the word of the democratic revolution is HONESTY!

  5. 30% of a 1,000 member CLP means 300 votes are required. I have never ever seen 300 members in one CLP do anything. As for 30% of union members who are not party members having the same power as members I do not begin to understand. As for the back-stabbing disloyal PLP having twice the voting power of ordinary members … My only hope is that I have completely misunderstood this disgusting carve up.

  6. So no democracy from the ground up then eh? Just screw the members, what do we care about them. Utterly depressing situation. There is no way anybody that doorsteps can say to a prospective Labour voter that this Party stands for democracy. Shameful.

  7. I am really impressed at your sources. For me now, the Oct meeting of the NEC is the critical one on how they approach freeedom of expression on Israel. Can you tell me which date it’ll be? To help them along with that discussion, I’m hawking this petition at Conference this weekend. Sign it and get it touch if you want to help
    https://www.change.org/p/to-chair-of-labour-s-nec-andy-kerr-labour-members-declaring-israel-is-a-racist-endeavour-call-on-nec-to-abandon-full-ihra

Leave a Reply