Does the NEC need a facelift?

alexhilton Mon Dec 10, 2007 at 08:49:55 AM GMT Print-friendly version Facebook

You might know I have started the beginnings of a Labour wiki. I have just done a draft of a page on the NEC and it occurs to me that things are a little imbalanced.



Currently, the NEC looks like this;

Leader: Gordon Brown
Deputy Leader: Harriet Harman
Treasurer: Jack Dromey
Government: Pat McFadden
Government: Angela Eagle
Government: Dawn Primarolo
EPLP Leader: Gary Titley MEP
Young Labour: Stephanie Peacock
Div. I - Trade Unions: Keith Birch
Div. I - Trade Unions: Michael Griffiths
Div. I - Trade Unions: Jim Kennedy
Div. I - Trade Unions: Diana Holland
Div. I - Trade Unions: Harriet Yeo
Div. I - Trade Unions: Paddy Lillis
Div. I - Trade Unions: Andy Kerr
Div. I - Trade Unions: Norma Stephenson
Div. I - Trade Unions: Debbie Coulter
Div. I - Trade Unions: Cath Speight
Div. I - Trade Unions: Mary Turner
Div. I - Trade Unions: Joe Mann
Div. II - Socialist Societies: Dianne Hayter (Chair)
Div. II - Socialist Societies: Keith Vaz MP
Div. III - CLPs: Ann Black
Div. III - CLPs: Ellie Reeves
Div. III - CLPs: Peter Wheeler
Div. III - CLPs: Walter Wolfgang
Div. III - CLPs: Pete Willsman
Div. III - CLPs: Christine Shawcroft
Div. IV - Labour Councillors: Jeremy Beecham
Div. IV - Labour Councillors: Sally Powell (Vice Chair)
Div. V - PLP/EPLP: Janet Anderson
Div. V - PLP/EPLP: Dennis Skinner
Div. V - PLP/EPLP: Michael Cashman MEP

Of the 33 NEC members;

9 represent Labour Party Members
(6 elected by CLPs, 2 Councillors and 1 youth rep)

9 represent the PLP and EPLP
(Leader, Deputy Leader and 3 Government nominees plus 2 elected by the PLP. Plus the Leader of the EPLP and one MEP elected by the EPLP)

15 represent the Unions and Affiliates
(12 appointed by Trade Unions, 2 elected by the Socialist Societies, plus Treasurer Jack Dromey [can't remember if he was appointed or elected])

Considering out leadership and deputy leadership elections use the electoral college as thirds, should it not be the same case on the NEC?

Would it be easier to reduce the Union section of the NEC by six places or increase the CLP and PLP sections by six places each? Or is everything OK as it is?


tags: (all tags)

Display: Sort:
Does the NEC need a facelift? | 15 comments (15 topical)

Re: Does the NEC need a facelift? (#1)

by repub on Mon Dec 10, 2007 at 09:04:14 AM GMT

I would suggest an increase in the CLP section and a slimming of the PLP/EPLP section.

They can maintain a presence but its not necessary to have so many parliamentarians on the body. Ideally the government nominees would go, allowing the PLP/EPLP to elect from themselves for their alloted places.

In an ideal world the CLPs and affiliates would have equal representation, though again I'm not sure i'd allocate spaces for councillors.


Re: Does the NEC need a facelift? (#11)

by Peter Kenyon on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 08:38:42 AM GMT

Dear Repub


The CLGA slate for the NEC Constituency section elections in 2008 will be campaigning on that platform, among other things of interest to the majority of members.


[ Parent ]

Re: Does the NEC need a facelift? (#2)

by alexswanson on Mon Dec 10, 2007 at 10:10:55 AM GMT

As an outsider I suppose it's really none of my business how the Labour Party organises itself, but can I diffidently suggest that you should not be organisationally linked with trade unions at all. A modern political party should aim to represent all sections of society, and not emphasise one particular minority group. I appreciate the historical reasons for this but that's what they are - historical.

 If once all formal links were severed individual unions took it upon themselves to support the party they thought would best benefit their members, that's another matter, though even then you start to get into the tricky area of what you regard as permissable party funding.


Re: Does the NEC need a facelift? (#3)

by alexhilton on Mon Dec 10, 2007 at 10:40:46 AM GMT

I have to disagree with you Alex. Unions represent millions of working people in this country and their involvement with the Labour party from its earliest days is not just a matter of pride and tradition but also a reminder of what and who we stand for.

Millions of people have a say in who we elect to be our leader and deputy and what our policies should be and who should be our parliamentary candidates.

Breaking the union link would take millions of people out of direct involvement in the political system, which is not the direction we should be going in.

Unions are free to disaffiliate from the Labour Party and to affiliate with other parties if those other parties will have them.

But I think we should be working on how to get those Unions who have left us back into the party.


[ Parent ]

Re: Does the NEC need a facelift? (#6)

by alexswanson on Mon Dec 10, 2007 at 12:39:48 PM GMT

"Breaking the union link would take millions of people out of direct involvement in the political system, which is not the direction we should be going in."

Fair point, especially at a time when public disillusion with the political system is at an all time high. 

"Unions are free to disaffiliate from the Labour Party and to affiliate with other parties if those other parties will have them."

 Also fair.


[ Parent ]

Re: Does the NEC need a facelift? (#4)

by TrueLabour on Mon Dec 10, 2007 at 10:45:24 AM GMT

Alex is right to raise this.   It is quite clear that the NEC has failed on many occassions to do its job properly.  Cash for honours and donorgate being just a couple of examples.  Yet the people on it such as its current Chair carry on without falling on their sword in shame at their failure.

The problem starts with the fact that there are too many people on it and too many of them are appointed by others such as the PMs appointments and the unions.

 So start with cutting out the Treasurer slot which has made us a laughing stock.   The post either has no power or the person doing it is incompetent.   Who knows which it is, so let us get rid of it.

Then cut the union posts down from 15 to 3.  Halve everything else where there are two or more.   We end up with about 14.

Each would then have a stronger base to actually take part in the discussions.  At present if 33 speak for 5 mins each that takes up 2 and a half hours.


Re: Does the NEC need a facelift? (#5)

by swatantra on Mon Dec 10, 2007 at 11:01:11 AM GMT

For the first time I've actually studied carefully those on the list and realised that half of them shouldn't be there! No wonder the NEC is toothless. It needs fresh blood and people on it who will make a real contribution. Can we cut the unions by a half, get rid of the affilliates, increase the number of CLP's but get quality on instead of what we have at present, and get rid of the DL on the NEC, we don't need both PM and DL on.


[ Parent ]

Re: Does the NEC need a facelift? (#9)

by doctordunc on Mon Dec 10, 2007 at 07:31:42 PM GMT

Umm... No!

That soundsl like a perfect recipe for destroying the union link and making us entirely dependent on large donations from wealthy individuals.  The worst suggestion I've heard in a long time.

If the 'regeneration' of Labourhome is to be one where it champions the breaking of the link, I fear it's going in the wrong direction!


[ Parent ]

Re: Does the NEC need a facelift? (#10)

by alexhilton on Mon Dec 10, 2007 at 11:21:52 PM GMT

Crikey, that sounds almost exactly the same as Luke Akehurst's criticism. Breaking the Union link is the last thing on my mind.

The other way to break it down is to look at which voices are (theoretically) independent and which are appointed.

19 members with powerful interests
Leader, Deputy Leader, Treasurer, 3 x Government appointees, EPLP Leader, 12 x Trade Union appointees

14 elected independently
Young Labour Rep, 2 x Socialist Society Reps, 6 x CLP Reps, 2 x Cllr's Reps, 3 x PLP/EPLP reps

And when you consider the efforts that are taken to ensure those fourteen aren't what you might call entirely independent, the voice of the average Labour party voter suddenly seems very small indeed.


[ Parent ]

Re: Does the NEC need a facelift? (#12)

by doctordunc on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 07:40:27 PM GMT

Well I was aiming my comments at "TrueLabour" who suggested cutting the union positions down to 3.

Alex, unless things have changed massively since I was a youngster, the Young Labour Rep is elected about as independently as Vladimir Putin, and there's already a massive dominance of the PLP in all party structures so you could knock out those three altogether.  The CLP reps situation is daft as well because - unless you're "in the know" you either vote for somebody from the Grassroots Alliance or people who you know ABSOLUTELY nothing about (other than that they were Vice-Chair of something and once edited a newsletter).

I've no objection to a debate about how the TU representation on the NEC is chosen, but really they - along with the CLP reps I suppose - are the bits that have anything to do with 'the voice of the average Labour party voter' - everything else is the usual PLP-dominated nonsense.


[ Parent ]

Re: Does the NEC need a facelift? (#13)

by rwendland on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 12:34:59 PM GMT

Anyone know how come an MP (Keith Vaz) got a Socialist Societies position on the NEC? This should really be a rank & file position - MPs have their own PLP/EPLP divison. There should be a rule preventing MPs moving in on other divisions.


[ Parent ]

Re: Does the NEC need a facelift? (#14)

by WillParbury on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 02:34:54 PM GMT

He won election as chair of the Black Socialist Society I think.  


[ Parent ]

Re: Does the NEC need a facelift? (#7)

by Captain Spaulding on Mon Dec 10, 2007 at 02:31:33 PM GMT

I agree with the other posters - quite a few members shouldn't be there. I don't think we should get hung up on whether people are from the CLPs, the unions, or whatever, the question is, are they capable of managing anything? Yes, there should definitely still be an hon. treasurer but we should look for someone competent. The one positive thing that could possibly come out of donorgate is that LP members will take a renewed interest in the NEC elections. By the way, when do they come up next?


Re: Does the NEC need a facelift? (#8)

by ChrisPaul on Mon Dec 10, 2007 at 07:29:08 PM GMT

Electoral college is in thirds but PLP section of course have the whip hand ... but conference is in halfs
 
Another way to slice this is:
 
Parliamentarians and grass roots = 18
Unions and treasurer = 15
 
All the first group are LP reps
 
More CLP reps would be a good idea but I see no reason to reduce TU reps ... as long as they do vote with TU or TUC policy or within any discretion they are given and not just always with the leader 
 
 


Re: Does the NEC need a facelift? (#15)

by alexhilton on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 03:43:10 PM GMT

Is it really logical to put parliamentarians in with grassroots?


[ Parent ]

Does the NEC need a facelift? | 15 comments (15 topical)