I have set out a model motion for use in Labour affiliated trade unions together with a model letter that you could use for circulating it to your contacts. Please act urgently. You can also download a briefing on the flaws in the Refounding Labour proposals and the motion/covering letter. Please email me at jon@lansman.co.uk if you have any problems.

We are making the points that:

1) Everything in it is based on what is in the TULO submission to which all unions agreed so nothing in it is a new commitment

2) Reaffirmation of the policy is nevertheless vital because of the pressure being applied by the party leadership to union leaders.

3) Although the sooner the better, it is still worthwhile putting forward this motion right up to party conference.

Best wishes, Jon Lansman

Dear …………… Refounding Labour to win You may or may not have had a chance to look at the summary report which has just been circulated from the party’s head office following the national consultation.

It regrettably makes little mention of many constructive submissions from TULO and others which would significantly improve the party’s policy-making and other procedures.

The report does, however, suggest giving new powers to individual “registered supporters” who are not prepared to become members, including votes in leadership elections. This would automatically dilute the input of genuine party members and affiliates such as our union.

The report also hints that it may bring forward last minute proposals on the eve of conference – Labour’s national executive meets on 20th Sept and conference begins on 25th Sept – on such key issues as:

• The balance of votes at conference
• The make-up of the party’s national executive
• The make up of the party’s conference arrangements committee

These are vital areas for the influence of our unions and our ability to work effectively within the Labour Party for the benefit of our members.

There are even suggestions that conference delegates will be asked to cast a single vote for or against the entire last-minute report, including a number of rule changes as yet unspecified. I think you will agree this would be a travesty of democracy.

As a Labour national executive member has pointed out, “all these areas are central to the party’s future, and it would be wrong and dangerous to bounce them through conference without proper consultation.”

I would therefore suggest to you, as a matter of top priority, that you send a strong message to the powers-that-be in your own union to ensure that the Labour Party rights of the Union and its members are properly protected and enhanced.

For comments, click on the links below:

Jon Lansman.

Peter Kenyon.

At its meeting on 23 July, the Campaign for Labour Party Democracy Executive recommended the following motion to trade union branches and committees:

We welcome TULO’s constructive proposals to increase the number of affiliates and individual members (e.g. with subscription rates which are more graduated on the basis of income) rather than to dilute the influence of members by creating a new category of “registered supporters” who could claim some membership rights (e.g. voting in leadership elections) without having any real commitment to the party, or making any financial contribution.

We call on our union’s representatives to speak and vote accordingly, and also to defend members’ interests in the following areas:

1. Local organisation. We welcome TULO’s recognition of the need to retain Labour Party structures that allow meaningful input into the politics and policy of the party. We will defend the right of local union branches to send delegates to constituency General Committees.

2. Policy documents. Conference should be given options and allowed to vote in parts. Affiliates and CLPs should be allowed to move amendments.

3. Motions to conference. We strongly endorse TULO’s recommendation to remove the restrictive “contemporary” criterion which currently leads to numerous motions on issues of genuine concern being simply ruled out of order. Motions passed at conference should be incorporated within the party’s policy documents.

4. Leadership responsibility. As the TULO submission makes clear, “if we are serious about giving members a voice, then we need to accept the freely made decisions of conference as legitimate party policy”.

5. Conference voting. We support the current evenly balanced system in which votes are equally divided (50/50) between CLPs and affiliates.

6. Conference arrangements committee. This committee should continue to consist of representatives of CLPs and affiliates only.

7. National Executive Committee. The NEC is the party’s governing body between party conferences. It should retain its full responsibilities. The current NEC structure gives under-representation to individual members and over-representation to MPs. We support the TULO proposal to increase the number of CLP seats (elected on a national basis) and in addition to reserve two seats for election by members in Scotland and Wales respectively.

8. Joint Policy Committee. In accordance with TULO’s recommendation, this powerful body should either be democratised (with proper representation for CLPs and affiliates) or abolished.

9. Leadership elections. We defend the right of our union’s levy-payers to vote in leadership elections. We also defend their right to have a full range of candidates to consider. We therefore oppose the current ability of MPs to keep off the ballot paper candidates who may have substantial support in the country at large. The right to make a meaningful nomination should be extended to CLPs and affiliates.

10. Parliamentary selections. A sitting MP is guaranteed a place on the shortlist and should have no reason to fear an open selection contest. TULO proposes that a sitting MP should in future need, in order to achieve automatic reselection, at least 66% of affiliated and branch nominations. This would be an improvement on current rules.

11. Rule changes. Any proposed rule changes should be circulated well in advance of conference and voted on one by one. The TULO submission makes the point that “we cannot treat our members as a force to be tamed or ignored”. We now call on our union representatives to argue forcefully for the points above in order to make the Labour Party properly responsive to our members’ legitimate and vital interests.

* “To remove the ‘contemporary’ criteria”, so that Constituency Labour Parties (CLPs) can put motions to Labour Party conference without having to prove that they are “contemporary” (i.e. based on events in August) and running a large risk of almost any motion being ruled out of order.

* “To enforce the original proposal for 4 + 4”, that is to allow CLPs to put four issues on Labour Party conference agenda. (At present, if the CLPs choose an issue which is also chosen by the trade unions, then the CLP choice simply falls, and conference debates fewer issues).

* To “make it explicit that [resolutions] passed should be incorporated within our policy documents”. At present, as the submission notes, resolutions passed at Labour Party conference are published nowhere permanent, only in the Conference Arrangements Committee reports circulated daily within the conference.

* To reject the fashionable idea that the Labour Party should create a new “category” of supporters beyond its membership (i.e. create an ultra-passive “electorate” for certain issues, easily manipulated by the leadership to bypass the regular structures of the party). The submission notes that there is already an easy mechanism for “socialist societies” and other campaign groups to affiliate to the Labour Party.

• To propose that Labour leadership elections be simplified to one member, one vote, across the whole CLP and affiliated (union) membership, with no special weighted vote for MPs. Voters who are simultaneously CLP and affiliated-union members would be asked to certify that they were only using one vote.

• To “rebalance” Labour’s National Executive Committee, with 9 CLP reps, a rep each from Scotland and Wales, 11 trade union reps, and only 11 representatives from MPs, etc.

• To defend what remains of Labour’s local democracy, including the participation of union delegates in CLPs.

All these are better than Ed Miliband’s direction, with his 27 June abolition of the Parliamentary Labour Party’s right to elect the Shadow Cabinet.

The report is scathing about the regime since the Blair coup: “Great iniquities… of centralised command and control”; “wilful dismissal of party option”; “apparent deafness of former Party leaders to union issues… [most obviously] the commitment to retain the majority of legislation that restricted trade unions”; “the determination of previous leaderships to micro-manage Conference, and when that fails to greet its decision with outright hostility”; “the policy process… increasingly obscure… treated as a toolbox to use when keeping out unwanted voices”.

The report is wordy and diffuse. It shows the signs of being a fudged compromise between different views (in the submission, as in Labour Party affairs generally, the unions almost always act as a bloc, “averaging out” between the more leftish unions and the more conservative ones).

Union activists — probably, even union Executive members — were allowed no input to it. All those factors make it doubtful that the union general secretaries will fight for the positive proposals without strong pressure from their unions’ members.

Some vital changes which in the past have had trade-union support — allowing Conference to amend National Policy Forum reports, easing bureaucratic obstacles to Constituency Labour Parties proposing rule changes — are not included.

Worst, the submission “can see no value in a return to a resolution-based process that operates around Conference” (i.e. the relatively simple structure, based on resolutions to conference from CLPs and unions, which existed from the start up to Tony Blair’s changes in 1997).

Instead, it pitches its proposals as bringing the Labour Party today back to what was outlined on paper, in 1997, but never really operated.

The reason why the National Policy Forum, the Policy Commissions, the Joint Policy Committee, and so on, have all become shams is, however, that their purpose was precisely “a toolbox to keep out unwanted voices”. Once they had done that, no-one was very interested in them. The decisive improvement needed (even if it goes alongside, for example, a residual NPF) is to restore real life to Labour Party conference.

This CLP believes that:

1. The review of the Party’s policy-making is very timely;

2. The number of motions to be considered by our Party’s annual conference should no longer be restricted to eight but should be increased to at least 12;

3. CLPs and affiliated organisations that submit a resolution should no longer be debarred from also submitting a rule change;

4. Motions may be on any matters of concern to CLPs and affiliates and should not be ruled out of order on the grounds that they are deemed to be insufficiently “contemporary” or that they could have been sent elsewhere;

5. Policy documents presented to Conference should be open to amendment and to being voted on in parts.

This CLP also believes that, in order to give members increased confidence that the policies agreed will be properly taken forward:

a. The decisions of conference should be respected by the party leadership and included, where appropriate, in our manifesto;

b. The shortlisting and selection of parliamentary candidates should be conducted by the local Party members without external intervention;

c. The number of seats on the party’s National Executive Committee elected by constituency members should be increased from six to ten, including one seat each chosen by constituency members in Scotland and Wales.

Your CLP can submit either a rule-change proposal (by 24 June) or a ‘contemporary’ motion (by 16 September; but it must be ‘contemporary’, i.e. refer to recent events, i.e., in effect, events in August).

Suggested rule change

The right to amend NPF documents at conference

The Labour Party Rule Book 2011 (page 21), Section B, Chapter 3 Party Conference, 3C Procedural rules for party conference, 2. Conference rule 2 – Agenda. 2C reads as follows:

‘All affiliated organisations and CLPs may submit one contemporary motion which is not substantially addressed by reports of the NEC or NPF to Conference . The CAC shall determine whether the motions meet these criteria and submit all motions received to a priorities ballot at the start of conference. The ballot will be divided into two sections. One section for CLPs and one section for trade unions and other affiliated organisations. At least the four priorities selected by CLPs will be time-tabled for debate, as will at least the first four priorities selected by Trade Unions and other affiliated organisations. Motions must be in writing, on one subject only and in ten words or less and may be supported by an explanation of why the motion should be prioritised. Alternatively, a constitutional amendment on one subject only may be submitted in writing. Contemporary motions and constitutional amendments must be received by the General Secretary at the offices of the party by the closing date determined by the NEC.’

Amendment

Add at end: ‘In a year when conference is considering the final stage documents from the National Policy Forum, CLPs and affiliated organisations may submit one amendment to the material set out in the final stage documents. These amendments shall be subject to compositing for debate and voting at conference in accordance with recommendations from the Conference Arrangements Committee.’

Supporting arguments

The Partnership in Power rule changes introduced in 1997 substantially reduced the opportunities for members’ participation in Labour’s policy making process. A rule change promoted by CLPD, and carried thanks to the support of trade union delegates, now gives CLPs the right to debate four subjects of their choice. However, most policy proposals are still decided by the National Policy Forum where CLPs and affiliated trade unions are under-represented. The rule change we are proposing would allow CLPs and affiliated organisations to submit an amendment to the final reports of the NPF. This would give CLPs some direct role in policy-making.

Suggested rule change

Four plus four should equal eight

The Labour Party Rule Book 2011 (page 21), Section B, Chapter 3 Party Conference, 3C (Procedural rules for Party Conference), Conference Rule 2, Clause 2C reads as follows:

‘All affiliated organisations and CLPs may submit one contemporary motion which is not substantially addressed by reports of the NEC or NPF to Conference. The CAC shall determine whether the motions meet these criteria and submit all motions received to a priorities ballot at the start of conference. The ballot will be divided into two sections. One section for CLPs and one section for trade unions and other affiliated organisations. At least the four priorities selected by CLPs will be time-tabled for debate, as will at least the first four priorities selected by Trade Unions and other affiliated organisations. Motions must be in writing, on one subject only and in ten words or less and may be supported by an explanation of why the motion should be prioritised. Alternatively, a constitutional amendment on one subject only may be submitted in writing. Contemporary motions and constitutional amendments must be received by the General Secretary at the offices of the party by the closing date determined by the NEC.’

Amendment

Replace the fifth sentence which reads ‘At least the four priorities selected by CLPs will be time-tabled for debate, as will at least the first four priorities selected by Trade Unions and other affiliated organisations’ with the following: ‘At least the first four priorities selected by Trade Unions and other affiliated organisations will be time-tabled for debate, as will at least the first four priorities (excluding those selected by the Trade Unions and other affiliated organisations) selected by CLPs’.

Supporting Arguments

Partnership in Power structures introduced in 1997 limited members’ direct input into conference to only four subjects. In practice these were chosen by the unions. Thanks mainly to union dissatisfaction with the way conference was being ‘managed’, the 2003 conference passed a rule change which provided for four subjects also to be chosen by the CLPs. But when it came to voting for priorities, CLP delegates were often
pressurised first by ministers in ‘briefing’ sessions, then by party officials, that they should vote for the priorities chosen by the unions because ‘there would not be time to debate more than four subjects’. The result has been that, in most years since, only one additional subject has been debated. The New Labour plan to avoid debate and the possibility of the platform’s defeat on controversial subjects was therefore largely achieved. This rule change would ensure that eight subjects are debated every year, four chosen by the trade unions and four additional subjects chosen by the CLPs. This would increase the role of CLPs and the influence of annual conference, the party’s sovereign body. The trade unions are generally very supportive of this proposal.

Suggested rule change

CLPs to have the right to submit a rule change AND a contemporary motion

The Labour Party Rulebook 2011 (page 21). Section B. Chapter 3. Rule 3C Procedural rules for party conference. Conference Rule 2 – agenda. Clause 2C.

The last but one sentence of Clause 2C reads as follows: ‘Alternatively, a constitutional amendment on one subject only may be submitted in writing.’

Amendment

Delete ‘Alternatively’ and replace by ‘also’.

Supporting arguments

The right of CLPs and affiliated organisations to amend the party’s Constitution is an important democratic right. There should be no restriction on this right.- At present, CLPs and affiliated organisations can submit either a rule amendment or a ‘contemporary motion’, but not both. This is an arbitrary and unnecessary restriction, since there is no link whatsoever between rule changes and ‘contemporary motions’. The above rule change would remove this unreasonable restriction. The trade unions are generally very supportive
of this proposal.

Suggested rule change

Annual Conference – minority positions to Annex Reports

The Labour Party Rule Book 2011 (page 21), Section B, Chapter 3 Section C (Procedural rules for Party Conference) Subsection 2B Line 4.

Add after ‘policy commissions’:

‘including any Annex Reports. The NEC will also make provision for any alternatives or minority reports to these Annex Reports to be presented, provided each alternative/minority report has been supported by at least 20 per cent of the members of the appropriate Policy Commission.’

Supporting Arguments

The Rule Book allows for Minority Positions to be timetabled every four years in relation to final reports from the National Policy Forum – provided at least 35 members of the NPF’s total membership of some 195 agrees to each Minority Position. Each year at Conference Annex Reports are moved by Policy Commissions in relation to the Contemporary Motions from the previous year’s Conference. At present these are put forward on a ‘take it or leave it’ basis. The above rule change would allow for a wider range of debate and bring the procedure into line with the process in relation to NPF reports. There are some 16 members of each Policy Commission, so a figure of 20 per cent to agree a Minority Report is roughly parallel with the process in relation to NPF reports.

Suggested rule change

Policy reports: end the choice between all or nothing. Allow conference to vote in parts

The Labour Party Rule Book 2011 (page 22), Section B, Chapter 3 Party Conference, 3C Procedural rules for party conference, Conference rule 2 – Agenda. 2G reads as follows:

‘Conference shall consider policy reports and draft reports as part of the rolling programme, the NPF report, the NEC annual report, NEC statements and development strategy, constitutional amendments and contemporary motions or emergency resolutions submitted and accepted. It shall not consider any business unless recommended by the NEC or the CAC. At any special session of party conference, the NEC shall determine the business to be conducted.’

Amendment

First sentence: after ‘strategy’ end the sentence and insert:- ‘Conference has the right to refer back part of any policy document without rejecting the policy document as a whole. Conference shall also consider…’

Supporting Arguments

Conference has always had the right to refer back any section of the NEC Report. But the platform has always refused to extend this right to NEC policy statements (except in 1974 when Tony Benn chaired the Conference). When Partnership in Power was introduced in 1997 delegates were led to believe that National Policy Forum reports would be voted on in parts if Conference so wished. But in practice this has not happened. Conference has to vote for the whole document on a take-it-or-leave-it basis. This means that documents are always passed, although delegates may be unhappy with one or more particular section. This proposed rule would allow Conference to have a separate vote on any part of a policy document. It is a simple democratic procedure that is long overdue. The trade unions are very supportive of this proposal.

Suggested rule change

Remove the arbitrary criterion of ‘contemporary’ in relation to annual conference motions

The Labour Party Rule Book 2011 (page 21), Section B, Chapter 3 Party Conference, 3C (Procedural rules for Party Conference), Conference Rule 2 – agenda, Clause 2C reads as follows:

‘All affiliated organisations and CLPs may submit one contemporary motion which is not substantially addressed by reports of the NEC or NPF to conference. The CAC shall determine whether the motions meet these criteria and submit all motions received to a priorities ballot at the start of conference. The ballot will be divided into two sections. One section for CLPs and one section for trade unions and other affiliated organisations. At least the four priorities selected by CLPs will be time-tabled for debate, as will at least the first four priorities selected by Trade Unions and other affiliated organisations. Motions must be in writing, on one subject only and in ten words or less and may be supported by an explanation
of why the motion should be prioritised. Alternatively, a constitutional amendment on one subject only may be submitted in writing. Contemporary motions and constitutional amendments must be received by the General Secretary at the offices of the party by the closing date determined by the NEC.’

Amendment

First sentence: delete ‘contemporary’ and delete ‘which is not substantially addressed by reports of the NEC or NPF to Conference.’ Second sentence: delete ‘determine whether the motions meet these criteria and’.
Last sentence: delete ‘contemporary’.

Supporting Arguments

CLPs have precious little scope to influence decision-making at annual conference and the right to submit a single ‘contemporary motion’ is one of their most important opportunities. Indeed, this lack of real influence is a major factor why less and less CLPs are sending delegates to conference. Last year fewer CLPs sent delegates to conference than at any time since 1945. Unfortunately the arbitrary criterion of ‘contemporary’ is not only not properly defined, but it is unnecessarily restrictive. It lends itself to being used by the platform to rule out controversial issues that the Party establishment would prefer not to see on the conference agenda. But in a democratic party, annual conference (the Party’s sovereign body) should have the right to discuss all subjects which affiliated organisations, both CLPs and unions, consider are important. There should be no artificial barriers on this right. CLPs and unions should therefore have the right to submit whatever subject their members consider important. The unions are very supportive of this proposed rule change.

Suggested rule change

Election of the Conference Arrangements Committee (constituency section) by OMOV

The Labour Party Rule Book 2011 (page 26), Section B, Chapter 4 Elections of national officers of the party and national committees, 4C Procedural rules for elections for national committees, Clause 1B Election of Conference Arrangements Committee, Sub-clause i.b. reads as follows: ‘The other two members, at least one of whom shall be a woman, nominated by CLPs shall be elected by means of a ballot among delegates from CLPs at party conference on a card vote basis as provided in these rules Chapter 3 C.3.A above.’

Amendment

Delete: ‘among delegates from CLPs at party conference on a card vote basis as provided in these rules Chapter 3 C.3.A above.’
Replace with: ‘conducted among all eligible individual members of the party by means of a national one-member-one-vote postal ballot conducted to guidelines laid down by the NEC.’

● “tension between rank and file members, affiliated organisations, and elected representatives”;

● “trend towards open [sic] discussions with all views being summarised and forwarded [to the trash-bin] rather than voting on old-style resolutions”;

● “members… wonder[ing] what the point is of trying to influence policy-making…”

● “CLPs holding discussion meetings… without any tangible link to actual policy-making…”

● “command and control culture”;

● “party members [feeling] they had no influence on policy outcomes”.

Activists should contrast Hain’s document with Labour Party Democracy Task Force report, and make submissions to the consultation accordingly.

We ask Labour and trade union activists who endorse the principles above to contact us and sponsor the campaign, and if they can to make a donation.

We also campaign for:

A cleaned up party – which members are “proud to call their own”

• Party officials who respect members rights and observe civil service principles of integrity, honesty, objectivity and impartiality
• Clear line of accountability of officials to NEC through the General Secretary
• a renewed right of members to select and reselect all candidates without interference by officials – an end to “selection” by parachute
• a charter of members’ rights, together with a post of ombudsman and code of ethics including a whistleblowing policy
• a return to operating within the rule book

Everyone in the labour movement agrees that the Labour Party should be made more democratic. Conference 2010 started a year-long review of policy-making, in which all the drastic changes introduced by Tony Blair in 1997 (“Partnership in Power”) should be up for examination. It is now clear that the scope of this review can cover not only policy-making but the election of the leader and other aspects of party structure.

We want a real debate at Conference 2011, with all significant strands of Labour Party opinion able to get their proposals to the floor for discussion and decision.