Yesterday's NEC statement refusing rebel MP demands for Leadership nomination papers to be issued less than a week before Conference deserves close examination. My initial reactions are in bold beneath each section of the statement.
The Labour Party National Executive Committee is in agreement that internal procedural debates will not divert the Labour Party from our mission of building a fairer Britain and helping people through these challenging times.
No argument there, nor does it mean there should not be any internal debate if it can be shown it would help focus the Labour Party in its mission.
The NEC fully endorses the view of the Labour Party's general secretary and the party's independent legal advisors.
Why did we need lawyers to tell us what follows in the next paragraph?
A leadership election when in government can only be held if requested by a majority of party conference on a card vote, only Labour MPs can trigger the process and the NEC is confident that most MPs know their responsibilities under the rules.
This needs unpacking very carefully.
The Labour Party has followed this procedure for 11 years, as long as we have been in government under these present rules, and it has not required the issue of nomination forms at any time.
Correct. But only because no one has managed to draw attention to this issue so publicly previously.
The NEC has a responsibility to ensure the party follows these long-standing procedures and we will do so. The Labour Party will not waver from its historic responsibilities to our country and to those in greatest need.
Hopefully, not if the long-standing procedures are demonstrated to be unconstitutional.
The keystone of the current NEC defence is Rule 4.2.D.ii. This section of the Rule Book is headed: Timing of an election.
What precedes an election? A call for nominations.
That is why the NEC position is not sustainable.
The keystone of the rebels' case, albeit sullied by questionable political motives, is Rule 4.2.B.ii. That section of the Rule book is headed: Nomination. It is also the keystone of the case set out by Save the Labour Party whose aims include reviving the party as a democratically-run body.
Any vote at Annual Conference requires there to be a relevant business item on the agenda presented by the Conference Arrangements Committee at the opening session of Conference each day and agreed as business for the day. The only stakeholders able to submit resolutions are the NEC, CLPs and affiliates. MPs are excluded from submitting business directly to Conference.
Returning to the paragraph above which I have suggested needs unpacking, let's look at it more carefully. It says:
A leadership election when in government can only be held if requested by a majority of party conference on a card vote, only Labour MPs can trigger the process and the NEC is confident that most MPs know their responsibilities under the rules.
In particular, the phrase
...only Labour MPs can trigger the process and the NEC is confident that most MPs know their responsibilities under the rules.
Note there is no comma between ... only Labour MPs can trigger the process...and ... and the NEC is confident.
Of course, there is no reference to the NEC's confidence (or possible lack of it) in the Rule Book. What this phase highlights is that the NEC has has been advised in this instance by the General Secretary that it should call the rebels' bluff as there is no evidence that they have a candidate capable of attracting the necessary support from Labour MPs to oppose Gordon Brown.
But from STLP's point of view that should not detract from the NEC's over-riding responsibility to uphold the constitution, which is why STLP will continue to call for clarification of the Rule Book through arbitration and resumption of the requirements under 4.2.B to issue nomination papers to all stakeholders annually.
What the Rule Book sets out are provisions when Labour is in government enabling Annual Conference to either block or support a Leadership election when 20% of the PLP nominate a Leadership contender. That means CLP, TU and socialist society delegates (who do have votes at conference) resisting or supporting 20% plus Labour MPs (who do not have a vote.)
How would such business get to Conference in the first instance given that MPs themselves can not submit resolutions? It would be the General Secretary reporting to the NEC that under 4.2.B.ii one or more valid nominations had been received requiring a card vote at Conference. The Conference Arrangements Committee would be duly notified and time would be allocated for debate and a vote, which would automatically be taken as a Card Vote by the chair of conference, without a request being required from the floor.
By not issuing nomination papers in accordance with the Rule Book for 11 years, successive general secretaries and the NEC itself have failed to uphold members' democratic rights as set out. The consequences, though not direct, can be measured in falling membership, activism, and fewer Labour elected representatives in local, regional, national and European assemblies. By relying on precedent and seeking to enshrine the practice of not seeking nominations, with the words:
The NEC has a responsibility to ensure the party follows these long-standing procedures and we will do so.
the NEC risks reinforcing those downward trends that must be reversed if the next British election is to be won by Labour. Restoring Leadership accountability to the membership would be a first step to Labour's recovery in the polls by reviving the voluntary effort required to mobilise opinion that Labour is on the vast majority of people's side.