Why not take the money out of Labour's internal elections

sunderkatwala Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 06:15:34 PM GMT Print-friendly version Facebook

After Peter Hain's resignation, the NEC is likely to consider spending caps in internal elections. But there is no need at all for significant sums of money to be raised or spent in Labour party elections. I suggest a £500 cap on any donations, and the very lowest overall spending limits that are practicable. We would have better election contests and money saved could be spent on real politics.



Read the commentary on the New Statesman website
http://www.newstatesman.com/200801250004

"The National Executive Committee are likely to consider spending caps. They should think more radically and remove the funding factor entirely. There should be no need for any substantial political fund-raising, or spending at all, to fight party elections for leader or deputy". 

"This is a highly informed and engaged electorate. Members want Labour’s elections to be a contact sport – engaging and questioning candidates on values, policy and political strategy.

We don’t need candidates fantasising about running a US primary campaign or adopting the general election techniques of polling, telephone canvassing, glossy leaflets and national press ads - as the failure of Hain’s excessive spending showed.
 
The progressive left is well placed to host a ‘real politics’ election contest ...."





tags: , , , (all tags)

Display: Sort:
Why not take the money out of Labour's internal elections | 11 comments (11 topical)

Internal elections cannot be too cheap (#1)

by rwendland on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 09:46:31 PM GMT

We do want to put a stop to ridiculous spending, but as a second class stamp to 180,000 members costs £43,200 we need to think this thru carefully.

We do want effective communication: traveling around the country to speak to members at meetings, running a website, one or two posted leaflets for off-line members away from a big centre. These are all needed for a useful election.

Elections for 180k members simply cannot be that cheap. We don't really want a situation where the more personally wealthy candidates can do more campaigning using their own cash.

The Party could certainly reduce costs by providing one or two shared leaflet postings opportunities.


Re: Why not take the money out (#2)

by Curlew on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 09:02:11 AM GMT

I agree - take the money out.  I fully expected a ballot paper with CVs of the individuals to arrive from the party as a whole - not individual adverts which ended up unread in the bin.


Re: Why not take the money out (#3)

by swatantra on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 05:07:51 PM GMT

I agree, spend less money. No Leaflets; we would know enough about candidates already from media etc

1 Lets revamp every GC CLP and ward.

2 Each Region to be responsible for sending out ballot papers to the Secretaries of the CLP, and the Secretary then responsible for distributing to each Ward Secretary.

3 Each ward then meets, or if not enough members them the combined CLP meets, and debates the merits of candidates then votes at that special meeting by PR

4 These votes then sent back to Region and totted up and sent onto LP General Sec

5 The CLPs could be regarded as the caucus and the winner takes all as in a Primary ,or we pool all the votes of each candidate together as in OMOV.

6 The winer is then named.

The system I have proposed would save on unnecessary cost's and would engage a lot more members in selections, and is a lot simpler. 


[ Parent ]

Re: Why not take the money out (#4)

by andycharlwood on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 06:16:58 PM GMT

We have a common manifesto document for NEC elections, so why don't we just do that for leader and deputly leader elections too?


Off course, candidates would still want to employ press officers, researchers etc. so this would only partially solve the problem. The danger of setting a low spending cap is that it ends up just being ignored, with candidates submitting election expenses of dubious accuracy.


Swat's proposal seems to me a complete non-starter, as it would exclude members unable to attend meetings due to work committments, family committments, or for medical reasons. Dare I say it, there may also be some parts of the country where the branch and constituency structure doesn't really function and members in these areas would also be excluded.


[ Parent ]

Re: Why not take the money out (#5)

by swatantra on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 07:45:43 PM GMT

I was going to suggest inc proxy votes, but it could be open to abuse. Its not ideal  but the special caucus could be held on a weekend?
Where the wards have completely' collapsed' perhaps the CLP as a whole could meet together.
The idea is to keep it simple 'kis' and reduce the costs.


[ Parent ]

Re: Why not take the money out (#6)

by andycharlwood on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 11:24:17 PM GMT

Quite a lot of people work at weekends - lots of USDAW members in Tesco and the Co-op etc. for example. And if you are to ill to attend a meeting, your illness doesn't abate on saturdays and sundays. There is no viable alternative to OMOV.


[ Parent ]

Re: Why not take the money out (#7)

by swatantra on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 10:02:26 AM GMT

Its always been difficult getting a full turnout of LP members; look at ward meetings only the activists turn up; our sleeping members can't be bothered to come out, and its not because they are all working. Perhaps they might be encouraged to make an effort once in their lives to turn out to vote for 'the next PM'or Leader. We are never going to satisfy everyone; there has to be a cut off point sometime. But only a tiny fraction of members would be working on say Sunday 7pm onwards. Thats when the caucus should be held.


[ Parent ]

Re: Why not take the money out (#8)

by andycharlwood on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 03:49:51 PM GMT

Yes, most people won't be at work, but neither will be there much in the way of public transport, which is going to make it difficult for members who don't possess cars or live in walking distance of where the meeting venue.


[ Parent ]

Re: Why not take the money out (#9)

by swatantra on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 04:14:30 PM GMT

Car sharing ie lifts is a possibility; our ward members usually bring along other members to meetings. Its fairly straightforward and easy to set up a carsharing pool for important meetings.


[ Parent ]

Re: Why not take the money out (#10)

by andycharlwood on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 07:43:21 PM GMT

Indeed it is, but it isn't going to work everywhere for everyone, so some members are going to be excluded. There is no substitute for an OMOV postal ballot.


[ Parent ]

Re: Why not take the money out (#11)

by swatantra on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 11:52:43 PM GMT

Unfortunately postal votes are also open to abuse. Nothing beats having members physically present. I'm afraid no system is going to please all the people. Afew will unfortunately be disenfranchised, unless they make a real effort to get there.


[ Parent ]

Why not take the money out of Labour's internal elections | 11 comments (11 topical)