Keith Vaz and the NEC

alexhilton Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 12:59:57 PM GMT Print-friendly version Facebook

With all the recent discussions over the membership and role of the NEC, I thought I'd take a look at the rules - and was surprised to see this text below;

"4C.2a No elected member of the House of
Commons, European Parliament, Scottish
Parliament, Welsh Assembly or a member
of the House of Lords shall be eligible to
stand in Divisions I, II, III, or IV of the NEC.
Any member of Divisions I, II, III or IV shall
cease to be a member of the NEC if they
are elected to the House of Commons,
European Parliament, Scottish Parliament,"

Isn't Keith Vaz MP in Division II (socialist and co-operative societies)? Does anyone know if there was some dispensation in the rules that allowed Keith to take this NEC position while remaining an MP?






tags: , , , (all tags)

Display: Sort:
Keith Vaz and the NEC | 22 comments (22 topical)

Re: Keith Vaz and the NEC (#1)

by swatantra on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 01:40:53 PM GMT

Good point Alex; Vaz should step down immediately and give his place up to a more deserving member of the Party who is not a member of a legislature.


Re: Keith Vaz and the NEC (#2)

by bigpapi on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 01:41:18 PM GMT

You appear to be right Alex; Ann Black is usually a good source of info on the workings of the NEC, it may be worthwhile contacting her to find out how Keith sits on the NEC for the Socialist Societies, whilst being an MP. 


Re: Keith Vaz and the NEC (#3)

by alexhilton on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 02:27:15 PM GMT

Although the Labour Party website says that Keith Vaz is on the NEC under divion II, I have been told that he was actually elected under division VI, which had previously been defunct.


Re: Keith Vaz and the NEC (#4)

by PGKenyon on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 03:42:20 PM GMT

Dear Alex


Two issues


1, Keith is definitely not elected in Section II, there is only one place and that is definitely filled by Dianne Haytor


2. Was a derogation agreed from the spirit of Rule 4C. 2a to allow an MP to stand in section VI, about which the Rule Book is silent?


If not, then there is an issue to be looked at concerning the conduct of the election of the first NEC representative from the Black Socialist Society, and the lack of updating of the Rule Book to take account of Division VI


Peter Kenyon

chair, Save the Labour Party and Centre Left Grassroots Alliance candidate for the NEC Elections 2008


Re: Keith Vaz and the NEC (#7)

by rwendland on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 04:55:28 PM GMT

I think the explanation is that the Black Socialist Society NEC member has his/her own position under Clause VIII.1(g), and doesn't come under the normal 24 elected Clause VIII.1(a) NEC members subject to rules 3C and 4C.

As far as I can see no further rules apply to the Black Socialist Society NEC member beyond VIII.1(g), which is simply:

(g) one member elected by the Labour Party Black Socialist Society at its conference as laid down in the rules of the socialist society. This member to be elected once the individual membership of the socialist society has reached 2,500 and at least one third of eligible trade unions have also affiliated to the socialist society.

We need to get the Black Socialist Society rulebook to understand more.

I certainly agree this position should in part be about helping a Black Socialist Society member gain experience and exposure, to help promote minorities to the higher levels of the Labour Party; not give a busy MP a bit more clout.


[ Parent ]

Re: Keith Vaz and the NEC (#5)

by alexhilton on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 04:13:43 PM GMT

The confusion on this score comes from this page on the Labour Party website, which clearly says that Keith Vaz is in Division II of the NEC
http://www.labour.org.uk/National_Executive_Committee

However, Ann Black has clarified the matter. Keith is there under clause VIII.1(g)

"one member elected by the Labour Party
Black Socialist Society at its conference as
laid down in the rules of the socialist
society. This member to be elected once
the individual membership of the socialist
society has reached 2,500 and at least
one third of eligible trade unions have also
affiliated to the socialist society."

MPs are not excluded from this section.


Re: Keith Vaz and the NEC (#6)

by swatantra on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 04:37:26 PM GMT

Having said that, now that the Black Socialist Society is up and running (again!), Keith should still move over and let someone else represent them. Keith did a valuable job representing the BSS up till now but, the NEC should have a broader range of members on it. It has got more than its fair share of MP's.


[ Parent ]

Re: Keith Vaz and the NEC (#8)

by Wiseman on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 05:09:41 PM GMT

No I know why I put my name forward for the NEC

Clarity

John Wiseman
NEC Candidate


Re: Keith Vaz and the NEC (#9)

by alsoleeds on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 05:13:42 PM GMT

I think Peter Kenyon (see above) is in a better position to do this and if you keep anybody off the NEC from the CLGA slate by splitting the vote, it will probably be Peter.


[ Parent ]

Re: Keith Vaz and the NEC (#10)

by Wiseman on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 05:58:37 PM GMT

Dear Also

You actually make a good point, but I am not splitting the vote.  Like I told Pete Willsman, I have seen a whole in our resprwsentation as a left and centre-left "where is the next generation coming from?"  This is not .  I also have had numerous CLP and union members offering support from within Unite and others.  I would not be so hasty.  I feel that I could just scrape on with a bit of luck  so I am standing on a progressive and supplementary to the grassroots and I can tell.  I tell you what e-mail me on JWis221300@aol.com, and see what I have done in the Labour movement and make your own mind up.

Keep the red flag flying!

Wiseman


[ Parent ]

Re: Keith Vaz and the NEC (#11)

by alsoleeds on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 06:03:02 PM GMT

I am well aware from Unite people in  Yorkshire. Let's wait and see how the noms fall. But there is a mathematical imperative here that you don't seem to take into account. Why don't you run for the NPF next time to test your strength and then look to NEC.


Re: Keith Vaz and the NEC (#12)

by Wiseman on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 06:21:04 PM GMT

Dear comrade

I hope you give my best to Louise Cousins, Ray and the rest of the Leeds Unite lot.  I am listening, but somebody has to try.

Thanks

John Wiseman


[ Parent ]

Re: Keith Vaz and the NEC (#13)

by Val29 on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 09:13:29 PM GMT

i agree with Wiseman and that he should stand. He is of the left and holds opinions and values that ought to be represented.

And anyway who decided who is on the GRA slate? I know the STLP side had a ballot for their nominees but what about the rest? Its hardly democratic how they go about deciding the complete make up of their slate from my understanding. 

As i've said before well done Peter Kenyon for holding a ballot in the STLP!


[ Parent ]

Re: Keith Vaz and the NEC (#14)

by alsoleeds on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 10:05:49 PM GMT

I agree, but equally John hasn't got a democratic mandate from anybody. His base is UNITE who already has 4 representatives on the NEC. He is untested in LP elections, that is why I suggested the NPF first.


[ Parent ]

Re: Keith Vaz and the NEC (#17)

by laurencemarshall on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 12:00:28 AM GMT

Surely the only democratic mandate Wiseman needs is that he is a member of the Labour Party?


[ Parent ]

Re: Keith Vaz and the NEC (#15)

by Wiseman on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 09:10:32 AM GMT

I was nominated from our political committee to the Noth West regional board.  I have got the support of the North West Amicus unity Gazette.  I will have the support of several dozen CLP's (with a bit of luck).  Many members of the LRC, gazette, the grassroots slate and in the party and other trade unions have said go for it.

I hope I can count on your support.  Alsoleeds speak to Susan Press.

Wiseman


Re: Keith Vaz and the NEC (#16)

by Ernesto on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 10:49:50 PM GMT

John, forgive if I'm wrong about this, but I thought that you are not on the Regional Board for the North West any7more?


[ Parent ]

Re: Keith Vaz and the NEC (#18)

by Wiseman on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 08:53:01 AM GMT

Dear Comrade

I was asked a question on a thread about experience and mandate and I listed that I had been on the Regional labour Party Board, when I was nominated from the regional political committe.  The confusion is coming because I answering multiple threads.  I am being supported by the North West Amicus Unity gazette

Thanks

John


[ Parent ]

Re: Keith Vaz and the NEC (#19)

by Ernesto on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 09:55:56 AM GMT

John, sorry for being awkward, but earlier in this thread you say

"No I know why I put my name forward for the NEC

Clarity"

Please clarify, definitvely, whether you are an Amicus rep on the Regional Board.

I am considering voting for you and want to be clear that you are actually doing what you claim/suggest you are doing.  


[ Parent ]

Re: Keith Vaz and the NEC (#20)

by Wiseman on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 10:02:20 AM GMT

I was Amicus rep on the North West Regional Board until the end of last year.  I then came off at the regional conference hence the list under another thread.

Thanks

John


[ Parent ]

Re: Keith Vaz and the NEC (#21)

by Ernesto on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 10:12:28 AM GMT

Thanks John, good luck with your campaign


[ Parent ]

Re: Keith Vaz and the NEC (#22)

by Wiseman on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 10:18:49 AM GMT

Dear Ernesto

Are you based in the North West and if so can I encourage you to spread the word

Thanks

John


[ Parent ]

Keith Vaz and the NEC | 22 comments (22 topical)