On Saturday, Labour Conference changed the rules as it pertained to the Local Campaign Forums now named Local Govt. Committees, the Rule changes were published in CAC 1 and I have made a copy that exclusively refers to Chapter 12, LCF Rule Proposal extract from CAC1

The key reforms are,

  1. Voting power on the LGC will be ⅓ for the Council Group, ⅓ for the CLP Reps, and ⅓ for delegates from Trade Unions. This is voting power it is not dependent on the number of delegates.
  2. Councillors may only sit in the Council Group class of delegates
  3. The Leader/Deputy Leader are to sit on the LGC Executive.
  4. There are strong, or maybe weak, but at least some rules to constrain Councillors from impacting seats they are interested in, but obviously not swapping favours.
  5. CLP’s delegate numbers will be representative of the number of wards represented in the LA area.
  6. The authority for the manifesto remains unclear.

This does not increase the accountability of the Labour Group.

Have a look and make a comment if I have missed anything.

Reform of Labours Candidate Selection
Tagged on:                     

4 thoughts on “Reform of Labours Candidate Selection

  • 16th October 2019 at 6:33 pm
    Permalink

    I looked at this, there are some curious ramifications which I doubt have been considered. Let’s prioritise the representation of Constituencies, to be exact, today, in Lewisham, two CLPs would need seven seats and one would need four, making 18 CLP delegates. This would mean 18 councillors and 18 Trade Unionists.

    Again in Lewisham, our Labour Group is large enough to provide 18 councillors but they would be expected to support the interests of the incumbency. If one of the larger CLPs decides to also support the incumbency this gives them 25 votes out of 54., two short of a majority.

    The way in which the Union places are elected will become crucial. If each CLP’s affiliated vote for a reserved number of seats, then the incumbency will win. It is also interesting whether phantom affiliates will be allowed to vote and if the Unions will seek to fill these positions at Regional Level.

    We’d best start thinking about this now.

  • 16th October 2019 at 6:41 pm
    Permalink

    The way in which the Mayoral selection panel is chosen will also be pretty critical. (This is ludicrous, that some of the incumbent Council, whose expenses are beholden to the Leader vote to set up the selection panel for the Mayoral candidate, Ptui!)

  • 16th October 2019 at 7:08 pm
    Permalink

    In my example above, the CLPs would need to send at least 4 women. We need to consider if we should use the round up (default rule) or round down (the conference rule ) for these delegations. This rule might determine the result in some TU delegation votes as in Deptford, the majority of Trade Union delegates are male.

    These are Union delegates, not affiliates.

    How do AMM governed CLPs discover eligible candidates for the TU college?

  • 22nd October 2019 at 12:52 pm
    Permalink

    The last word on the manifesto is now the LGC.

    The last word on any coalitions is unclear, their must be an LGC meeting which will consider.

    My concern on conflict of interest is worse, the group must be represented on interview panels.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: