NEC Report
My NEC report is online on the Progress website:
http://www.progressonline.org.uk/2011/09/21/nec-report-%E2%80%93-september-2011/
posted by Luke Akehurst at 10:38 am
Wednesday, September 21, 2011
http://www.progressonline.org.uk/2011/09/21/nec-report-%E2%80%93-september-2011/
About Me
- Name: Luke Akehurst
- Location: Oxford, Oxfordshire, United Kingdom
Labour Party activist since 1988 - firmly on the moderate wing of the party. Member of Labour’s NEC 2010-2012 and since 2020. National Secretary of Labour Students 1995-6. Parliamentary candidate for Aldershot (2001) and Castle Point (2005). Hackney Councillor (Chatham Ward) 2002-2014, Labour Group Chief Whip 2002-09, Chair of Health Scrutiny 2010-2014. Supporter of Europe, NATO/nuclear deterrence, Israel, electoral reform. Guardian reader. Dad. Oxford resident. Unite union member. Employment history as a Labour Party Organiser, Local Government Political Assistant, Director at a Public Affairs company. All views expressed in a personal capacity. The rest will become evident from reading the blog.
7 Comments:
Nothing to do with this NEC report, but with the previous NEC meeting (I am a bit behind...): I know the (re)selection rules have been discussed in July meeting and that the "substantial territorial interest" on a new constituency has been identified with 40% of electorate of current constituency going into the new one at the "freeze date"
What is the freeze date? I assumed it was the beginning of the review, but last week someone made me noticed it's probably the end of the review.
And if MP X in the only sitting MP who has substantial territorial claim on Somewhere West new constituency, does he basically have the right to a simple trigger ballot and can't be challanged by another MP who has parts of his current seat going into the new but that part is less than 40%, right?
I wonder because there's an interesting situation in South of London with high profile MPs involved
3:50 pm, September 21, 2011
The freeze date was the Dec 2010 electorate on which the Boundary Commission based its calculations.
If only one MP has a 40% interest in a new seat they go straight to trigger ballot as though they were the sitting MP.
4:06 pm, September 21, 2011
Many thanks for the reply, Luke.
That's what I understood last month but I wanted to have a confirmation before saying too loudly that some newspapers are writint crap! :-)
For ex the speculated Streatham and Tooting selection battle can't even happen: Umunna just has 24.31% of his current constituency going there while Khan has 56.28% of his Dec 2010 electorate making him eligible for a simple trigger ballot
4:18 pm, September 21, 2011
Chuka will I assume automatically get Brixton so no one loses out down there.
4:30 pm, September 21, 2011
Luke, but Jowell has 40.13% of her seat going into new Brixton (35.02% going into Dulwich and Sydenham and 24.31% into Streatham and Tooting).
Chuka only has 27.18% going into Brixton. The biggest share of his seat (36%) goes into Clapham Common (which should be notionally Tory)
Hoey has 50% going into Battersea and Vauxhall and 40.03% going into Brixton.
Let's assume Hoey goes for Battersea and Vauxhall and Jowell decides to retire and go to the Lords, will Chuka have a trigger ballot in Brixton or should he face an open selection (vs Steve Reed again?)?
5:04 pm, September 21, 2011
Interesting.
I wouldn't want to prejudge any decisions I might be involved in on the NEC, so will decline to comment.
8:46 am, September 22, 2011
Such a great article it was which Government’s policies, rules and the economic system, and who were bearing the burden of deficit reduction but would not see the bulk of the benefits of growth.In which the Members would get the chance to trigger debates at the National Policy Forum and have a say in policy making. Thanks for sharing this article.
1:37 pm, January 07, 2012
Post a Comment
<< Home