Labour review recommends members vote on leadership
May 12th, 2012 at 1:10 pm by David FarrarClaire Trevett at NZ Herald:
The Labour Party is considering a major change in the way it elects its leader to allow party members to force a handover of power through a no-confidence vote, or to block an attempt by caucus to roll the leader.
The group set up to review the Labour Party after its poor election result has recommended party members vote on the leader. At present only MPs elect the leader.
Party president Moira Coatsworth said it was “a significant shift” for the party.
“At the moment, because it is a caucus decision, caucus at any time can walk in and have a vote. So this would decide on mechanisms for triggering [a leadership vote.]“
New Zealand and Australia were the only Westminster countries in which the equivalent of the Labour Party did not allow members to vote on the leader.
It is unclear to what extent it is recommended that Labour members get a say on the party leadership, but this looks to be a step in the right direction.
Of course it may create tension, if implemented, as it seems most party members backed Cunliffe for Leader, while the caucus backed Shearer. So would Cunliffe’s supporters be able to trigger a leadership vote against the wishes of caucus? It will be interesting to see the detailed proposal.
What will also be interesting if whether unions will get a block vote for the leadership. This could give them even more power within the party.
Related posts:
- Labour giving members the vote
- Labour leadership voting
- The Labour leadership vote
- Small says Labour leadership challenge in February if Shearer flops at conference
May 12th, 2012 at 1:42 pm
It’s the golden rule – those with the gold make the rules…. It not surprising that the funding arm of the Labour party want to makes the rules.
Vote:May 12th, 2012 at 2:20 pm
Maybe they should give the party membership the right to vote on candidates…
Vote:May 12th, 2012 at 2:23 pm
Could be a weighted vote – 50% by the membership, 50% by the caucus. So if Shearer had 66% of the caucus and 40% of the membership he’d have been elected. (33/50 + 20/50 = 53/100).
Vote:May 12th, 2012 at 3:46 pm
it means nothing, Labour is dead
Vote:May 12th, 2012 at 4:30 pm
Letting members vote tends to give you extremist leaders.
Vote:May 12th, 2012 at 5:43 pm
Surely, those closest to the person who wants to lead are likely to be far more knowledgeable as to their qualities, capabilities and failings than all the membership in its entirety.
Simply, this latest act of microscopic intellects serves to underline how little in the way of life experience and general nous is possessed by those who’d deem that Labour is an alternative anything – let alone effective Opposition – let alone, let alone, let alone alternative Government!
Vote:May 13th, 2012 at 12:27 pm
Perhaps members should be allowed to vote by text 99cents a vote.
Vote: