A blog by Luke Akehurst about politics, elections, and the Labour Party - With subtitles for the Hard of Left.
Just for the record: all the views expressed here are entirely personal and do not necessarily represent the positions of any organisations I am a member of.
and btw, the CAC is not controlled the Leader of the Party but elected by rank and file delegates..isn't that a "democratically run membership organisation" they purport to campaign for?
I suppose that if they had reached the conference floor, they would have been defeated by a big margin (he said he'll go within a year, so no point to start a new row now). So it's almost better for StLP that they were ruled not in order: they can suggest it was just the evil CAC's fault
I'm less happy that the child poverty one you linked to a few months ago and which was submitted by Oxford East CLP has been ruled non-contemporary (even with mentions of Blair SE speech in early Sept) by CAC... any tips?
Antonia I agree. Hackney North passed that one too but also passed one on Lebanon which is what was submitted. The Briefing people in our CLP seem to have a good handle on how to ensure contemporary resolutions are contemporary - they correctly said both the poverty and leadership ones would be ruled out (it was them pushing the Lebanon one).
Pete Willsman's advice on the CLPD website is:
" Contemporary motions (CMs) from CLPs/affiliated organisations The closing date for motions on “contemporary issues” is 15th September. Emergency Resolutions cover an event that occurs after this date. Each CLP can send one CM provided that they have not already submitted a rule amendment in 2006. Head Office usually issues guidance (later August) on writing CMs and the criteria are very tight. CLPs need to ensure that the subject of their motion is not substantively addressed by the NPF/NEC Reports. Usually this means that the CM must relate in some way to something occurring after the end of July. The CM must be on one subject only. When assessing whether a CM is valid, the Conference Arrangements Committee (ie. Standing Orders Committee) will ask, “Could this have been sent to the NPF or NEC for inclusion in their reports?” An issue will be deemed to be contemporary, therefore, if it arises after the publication of the NPF and/or NEC Reports or is not substantively addressed by the NPF/NEC Reports."
Alternatively I guess one could ask Stephen Twigg or another CAC member for a view on a draft before submitting it.
Phil, I'm confused (geuninely, I'm not just being disputatious). The relevant part of the rulebook [3C2.3 for those that care] doesn't say anything about policy, just about topics not addressed in the NEC or NPF reports or which has come up since the two reports are published. Is there a protocol that says it is about policy making?
The rulebook also says nominations shall be sought each year prior to the annual session of party conference. Surely motions asking the NEC to get the electoral ball rolling are actually attempting to get the Party complies with its own rules?
Andrea, yes it may well be defeated but that's the point - even that would clear the political air. What we're left with is just a lot of contenders, mostly for the deputy leadership jockeying for visibility. A motion passed by my CLP but not sent as our contemporary resolution referred to Hazel Blears saying that, members were being left as bystanders, which is not what anyone wants.
Luke, which Lebanon one was being pushed? The one I saw blended Lebanon and the leadership and I expected it to be ruled out on the grounds that it confused two issues.
spot on Luke.
ReplyDeleteThe contemporary resolution process is about policy making.
The Leadership will be a matter for the NEC, as and when there is a vacancy...
Did they say 17 leadership resolutions...out of 600-plus clps?
either the other 600 know the rules better than this lot, or it's not the burning issue they claim...
and btw, the CAC is not controlled the Leader of the Party but elected by rank and file delegates..isn't that a "democratically run membership organisation" they purport to campaign for?
ReplyDeleteI suppose that if they had reached the conference floor, they would have been defeated by a big margin (he said he'll go within a year, so no point to start a new row now).
ReplyDeleteSo it's almost better for StLP that they were ruled not in order: they can suggest it was just the evil CAC's fault
I'm less happy that the child poverty one you linked to a few months ago and which was submitted by Oxford East CLP has been ruled non-contemporary (even with mentions of Blair SE speech in early Sept) by CAC... any tips?
ReplyDeleteAntonia I agree. Hackney North passed that one too but also passed one on Lebanon which is what was submitted. The Briefing people in our CLP seem to have a good handle on how to ensure contemporary resolutions are contemporary - they correctly said both the poverty and leadership ones would be ruled out (it was them pushing the Lebanon one).
ReplyDeletePete Willsman's advice on the CLPD website is:
" Contemporary motions (CMs) from CLPs/affiliated organisations
The closing date for motions on “contemporary issues” is 15th September. Emergency Resolutions cover an event that occurs after this date. Each CLP can send one CM provided that they have not already submitted a rule amendment in 2006. Head Office usually issues guidance (later August) on writing CMs and the criteria are very tight. CLPs need to ensure that the subject of their motion is not substantively addressed by the NPF/NEC Reports. Usually this means that the CM must relate in some way to something occurring after the end of July. The CM must be on one subject only. When assessing whether a CM is valid, the Conference Arrangements Committee (ie. Standing Orders Committee) will ask, “Could this have been sent to the NPF or NEC for inclusion in their reports?” An issue will be deemed to be contemporary, therefore, if it arises after the publication of the NPF and/or NEC Reports or is not substantively addressed by the NPF/NEC Reports."
Alternatively I guess one could ask Stephen Twigg or another CAC member for a view on a draft before submitting it.
"The Briefing people in our CLP "
ReplyDeletewhat do you mean with "Briefing people"? Labour Left Briefing "tendency" people?
Phil, I'm confused (geuninely, I'm not just being disputatious). The relevant part of the rulebook [3C2.3 for those that care] doesn't say anything about policy, just about topics not addressed in the NEC or NPF reports or which has come up since the two reports are published. Is there a protocol that says it is about policy making?
ReplyDeleteThe rulebook also says nominations
shall be sought each year prior to the annual session of party conference. Surely motions asking the NEC to get the electoral ball rolling are actually attempting to get the Party complies with its own rules?
Andrea, yes it may well be defeated but that's the point - even that would clear the political air. What we're left with is just a lot of contenders, mostly for the deputy leadership jockeying for visibility. A motion passed by my CLP but not sent as our contemporary resolution referred to Hazel Blears saying that, members were being left as bystanders, which is not what anyone wants.
Luke, which Lebanon one was being pushed? The one I saw blended Lebanon and the leadership and I expected it to be ruled out on the grounds that it confused two issues.
Andrea - yes Labour Left Briefing, several of whose Editorial Board are members of my CLP.
ReplyDeleteDan it would have been an LATW model on Lebanon as the same people are in both organisations.
"Andrea - yes Labour Left Briefing, several of whose Editorial Board are members of my CLP."
ReplyDeleteThanks, Luke.
I think your CLP is fascinating...it should be picked up for a case study about Labour Party wings.