Detailed consideration of draft constitution (working document 3)

 

Welcome to the 4th posting of the Internal Democracy and Constitution Policy Commission. Following discussions, suggestions and amendments in earlier drafts a working document has emerged and is reproduced below.

IT IS NOT A FINAL DOCUMENT AND NO DOUBT WILL BE CHANGED FURTHER.

The purpose of this discussion is to look at this draft with a constructive and critical eye, trying to identify problems and areas in need of amendment. We will doubtless not all agree but if we have one working document local groups/platforms will be able to suggest amendments to specific parts they disagree with at the November founding conference. We will also be able to meet in person at the September open conference and go through the working document to strengthen consensus and improve it further.

We circulated guidelines earlier that reminded everyone that unlike all the other Policy Commissions this one does not have the time or luxury to engage in ever expanding debates – although obviously this is a necessary for us to come up with practical solutions and compromises

ABOVE ALL IT IS NOT A PLACE TO POST LONG POLEMICS!

Please post on Strand 1 – Basic principles if you wish to make an extended statement about your vision of how a new Left Party should organise. They will still be read and taken into account but we hope contributors to this post will:

  • say if you agree with aspects of the text as well as disagree
  • keep it brief and refer to specifically to the numbered and lettered sections and sub-sections, that’s why all constitutions have them!
  • stay focused on the job in hand – we are drafting a constitution not talking about doing so
  • if you have a criticism make at least an attempt to suggest an alternative wording or amendment. If you can’t come up with a form of words try to say in a few bullet points what exactly you would wish to see in/or out

We are making good progress and are set fair fulfill our remit.

Onwards ever, backwards never!

Richard Murgatroyd and James Youd

Co-convenors Internal Democracy and Constitution Working Group

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1) Name. The name of the party shall be (TO BE DECIDED BUT THIS DRAFT WILL PROVISIONALLY CALL IT LEFT UNITY/LU) 

2) Aims The aims of Left Unity are:

a) to unite the diverse strands of radical and socialist politics in the UK including worker’s organisations and trade unions; ordinary people, grass root organisations and co-operatives rooted in our neighbourhoods and communities; individuals and communities facing discrimination because of gender, ethnicity, age, disability or sexuality; environmental and green campaigners; campaigners for freedom and democracy; all those who seek to authentically voice and represent the interests of working people

b) to win a mandate to govern and introduce radical and fundamental changes in British society based on our belief in the benefits of cooperation and community ownership instead of the chaotic competition of capitalism; universal human rights, internationalism and peace; social, political and economic equality for all in the fullest sense, without which true democracy and mutual respect cannot flourish; a democratically planned economy that is environmentally sustainable, within which all enterprises, whether privately owned, cooperatives or under public ownership operate in ways that promote the needs of the people and wider society; an inclusive welfare state which meets the needs of all and within which each contributes according to their ability

c) to above all promote grass roots democracy in the understanding that fundamental and radical change can only come with the support and active involvement of the majority of people and that the way we organise today is a pointer to the kind of society we want to see in the future

3) Membership.

a) Membership of Left Unity shall be open to any individual without regards to disability, ethnicity, gender or sexual orientation who:

  1. commits to further the aims of Left Unity
  2. abides by the democratically decided rules and constitution of Left Unity
  3. pay any subscription agreed by the Annual Conference
  4. support Left Unity candidates in elections

b) There shall be two types of membership of LU

i. Full membership as set out in 3 (a)

ii. Associate membership for ‘Friends of LU’ open to individuals who in return for a one-off donation, the minimum amount to be set by Annual Conference, shall receive national and local mailings, are invited to attend meetings, have the right to speak at meetings, but shall enjoy no voting rights.

4. Structure and general principles

a) The structure of Left Unity is based on the following principles:

  1. Decision making flows from the grass-roots upwards according to easily understood and democratic processes
  2. National committees and individuals holders of responsible positions exist to carry out the wishes of the membership
  3. Transparency – all minutes and reports of meetings and decisions of regional and national committees or structures will be published and made available to members
  4. Safeguards are put in place to ensure that individual post-holders and national committees are regularly elected, representative, accountable and are not able to concentrate power in a few hands. Left Unity will therefore operate a system of rotation of positions, with terms of office for any elected position limited to a maximum of 3 years, with a minimum 2 year break from office, with the right to again seek office thereafter
  5. A right of recall will apply to all positions at all levels
  6. Meetings to be chaired in rotation
  7. At least 50% of those elected to national committees will be women
  8. If groups of members wish to organise sections or caucuses based on identity or as a political platform to better develop policies, ideas and campaigns that reflect their needs or ideas they have the right to do so. They can then put this in the form of proposals and motions. But the members of sections and platforms will have no other special privileges in decision making. The principle of One Member One Vote will consistently apply
  9. There will be no more national meetings than necessary as this can discourage participation of ordinary people whose work commitments, financial resources, every-day activities, family and caring responsibilities are not compatible with ‘hyper-activism’ and a politics of endless polemical debating, resolution passing and point scoring. The basic principle of ‘meet as often as is genuinely needful will apply’.
  10. Care will be taken in when deciding the venue of all national meetings that they are geographically convenient and not London-centric.

 

b) The basic tiers of the decision making and management structure of Left Unity seeks to enact these principles and is set out below:

 

Individual members

|

Branches

|

Political platforms and Sections

I

Regional and sub-national structures

I

National conferences

I

Directly elected national committees and working groups with specialist roles

(including Complaints Committee, Finance and Audit Committee, Standing Orders Committee and any others that the National Conference deems necessary)

I

National Collective Council

 

5) Individual members

Individual members will have the following opportunities to participate in decision making in Left Unity:

  1. as a member of a branch that can propose resolutions to regional bodies, National Conference and national committees
  2. through attending, participating in National Conferences
  3. through electing representatives from the branch to regional bodies, elected regional members of National Committees, national individual post-holders and the principal speakers for the party
  4. through standing for election for the above
  5. through participation in on-line forums and consultative exercises in e-democracy organised to involve those who cannot attend National Conferences in person
  6. individuals can join together with like-minded individual members to propose motions to regional and national bodies and nominate individuals for elected individual positions at a national level in Sections and Platforms

 

6) Branches

  1. Branches bring together members and supporters of Left Unity, ideally along constituency and ward lines. Decisions to split or merge branches will be made by the groups themselves
  2. Branches will manage their affairs as they see fit, excepting that the conduct of the groups will be democratic and in accordance with the national rules, principles and policies of Left Unity. Basic democratic standards will be expected to apply: meetings to be accessible, all members informed of meetings and agendas circulated in good time, discussions conducted respectfully, group officers to be annually elected and subject to recall
  3. Branches may elect representatives to regional bodies and nominate candidates for any of the elected national committees

 

7. Political platforms and sections

Members of LU have the right to form and organise in Political Platforms and in Sections. These platforms and sections have rights to submit motions and nominate individuals in elections but members of them will not enjoy any other privileges in voting or special representation. The principle of OMOV will consistently apply. All platforms and sections are subject to the following additional rules

a) Sections and Platforms

i) Sections can be set up to encourage the self-organisation of party members who suffer from specific discrimination or have distinct interests and to enable them to organise collectively in campaigns against oppression and to take a lead in the party on these issues.

ii) Sections can also be set up to bring together party members interested in campaigning on a specific issue. Such sections can help to bring together members who are active in campaigns in order to intervene more effectively, co-ordinate activity, promote the party’s policies and feed- back experience into the party.

b) Platforms

i) Members have the right to organise in political platforms. As a pluralist party, we recognise that a range of political points of view is a healthy source of debate and new ideas.

ii) All Platforms/Tendencies should be open – their meetings, aims and objectives should be should be available to all other party members.

iii) Platforms have a right to be heard, to organise meetings, to produce literature, to distribute materials at LU meetings and, in general, to try to influence and/or change party policy.

iv) Platforms/Tendencies are not expected, however, to organise public campaigns against the overall aims or policy of the party.

v) if a member of a platform stands for any elected position they will declare their membership in the interests of transparency and to promote informed choices

8) English Regional, Scottish and Welsh structures

a). National committees will be created for Scotland and Wales, comprised of elected representatives of the branches in those nations

b) In recognition of the different political contexts and to better deal with issues specific to these countries, members in Scotland and Wales have the right to draw up their own constitutional rules and organisational structures that adhere to the principles set out in 4 (a) of the constitution and the Code of Conduct for elected representatives set out in Clause 13, subject to approval by National Conference/National Collective Council

c. In England, regional committees of representatives from branches will be organised for the following English regions London, South East, North East, North West, Yorkshire and Humber, East Midlands, West Midlands, Eastern , South West. Each local group will be entitled to send two delegates with speaking and voting rights and as many observers as wish to come.

d. The role of English regional, Welsh and Scottish committees will be co-ordinating and prioritising campaigning and organisational activities, assisting in the creation and building of branches and encouraging political education.

e. If 50 individuals from Northern Ireland apply to join LU the NCC will bring appropriate proposals for organisational and constitutional changes to Annual Conference

 

9) National conferences

  1. The national conferences of Left Unity are the supreme policy making body. No conference is bound by the decisions of a previous conference
  1. More than one National Conference can occur each year but the principle of ‘meet as often as is genuinely needful will apply’ will be rigorously applied
  1. The National Collective Council may call special national conferences if 2/3rds of those present desire
  2. If 25 % of branches pass a resolution or 25 % of members sign a petition calling for a special conference the NCC will organise it as quickly as practically possible,
  3. All members can attend and vote at National Conferences on the basis of One Member One Vote (OMOV). However, when Left Unity reaches 2,000 paid members the national committees will draw up proposals to move towards a delegate structure of decision making
  4. The NCC, branches and Regional/Scottish/Welsh committees have the right to propose motions that if passed by the National Conference will become policy.
  5. Political platforms and sectional groups will have the right to submit motions, so long as 20 full members have signed their support. NOTE: the figure of a minimum of 20 members will be reviewed and if necessary increased as the national membership increases
  6. National conferences will be organised by the Standing Orders Committee Committee directly elected by the national membership
  7. As OMOV consistently applies, the location of conferences will effect attendance and the Conference Arrangement Committee will seek a venue that is most easily geographically accessible and pooled fairs will apply

 

10) Direct democratic participation, the internet and E-conferences

 

a) Left Unity is committed to using social media and internet forums and voting in order to encourage free debate, respectful discussion and direct decision making within the party. The nationally elected Secretary, Communications and Returning Officers, along with specialist sub-committees of the NCC, shall therefore regularly review this area and present a report to Annual Conference, with proposals, on developing the use of IT

 

b) As a first the NCC shall organise E-conferences on specific single issues or questions when requested by 25% of branches. These shall take place of a forum to be organised by the NCC with online debate and binding voting, restricted via password protection to subs-paying LU members

 

c) Provision will be made for voting in all elections to be conducted by internet voting, but members may choose to receive postal votes instead

 

d) However, LU recognises that many members and supporters may not have the financial resources or wish to participate in this way. All publicity material and membership application forms will ask what is the preferred method of contact – while encouraging people to give us their email addresses if at all possible.

 

 

11) National committees with specialist roles

  1. All members of specialist national committees will be nominated by branches and directly elected by the members in national elections
  2. The following national committees of Left Unity with specialist roles will exist: Complaints Committee, Finance and Audit Committee, Conference Arrangements Committee. The National Collective Council will form ad hoc sub-committees and working groups as it sees fit to deal with specialist areas of work. These will be advertised and members encouraged to get involved and contribute as far as possible and open to participation by the wider membership. All agendas and minutes to be published

 

12) National Collective Council

 

  1. Left Unity will be led and organisational/financial issues managed in between national conferences by the National Collective Council (NCC)

 

  1. The composition of the NCC will comprise of a mixture of a total of 39 individual representatives elected as representatives on a regional/Scottish/Welsh basis and nationally elected individual post-holders with responsibility for developing policy and representing LU on specific political issues/areas of interest. All members of the NCC, irrespective of position and howsoever elected will have equal voting and speaking rights

 

  1. The term of office for all members of the NCC and national spokespeople will be 1 year.

 

  1. Nominations for regional representatives on the NCC to be made by branches within that region. Nominations for individual post-holders to be made by branches, regional bodies or by 20 full members, who have signed a nomination form. (NOTE: the figure of a minimum of 20 members will be reviewed and if necessary increased as the national membership increases)

 

  1. There will 22 regional representatives with one male and one female rep from the following regions (as defined by the division into constituencies for elections to the European Parliament) elected by the members in that region:

 

London (2)

South East (2)

North East (2)

North West (2)

Yorkshire and Humber (2)

East Midlands (2)

West Midlands

Eastern (2)

South West (2)

Scotland (2)

Wales (2)

g) The following 17 annually elected post-holders with national responsibility will be full members of the NCC:

  • Female National Principal speaker
  • Male national Principal speaker
  • National secretary (with responsibility for party organisation and minutes)
  • National Communications (with responsibility for membership and internal communications)
  • Elections Agent (with responsibility for external elections)
  • Returning Officer (with responsibility for internal elections and liaison with the Conference Arrangements Committee)
  • National treasurer

h) Annually elected male and female Policy Principal Speakers with shared responsibility for the following policy remits will be full members of the NCC:

  • Economy
  • Environment and transport
  • Equality
  • Health, education and welfare
  • Peace and international affairs

i) The National Collective Council shall meet at least 8 times a year and 55% of members must be present to form a quorum. Chairing to be rotational.

12) National elections within LU

a) Voting in elections for regional representatives on the NCC, individual post-holders and spokes-people on the NCC and members of national committees with specialist roles will be conducted using electronic voting systems via the internet, except that all members will have the right to opt out of this system and will instead receive a postal ballot

b) Only members residing in the relevant region/Scotland/Wales will have the right to vote for regional representatives on the NCC. All other positions will be elected in national elections

c) All candidates must be either nominated by a branch, regional body or 20 members belonging to a Platform or Section signing a nomination form

d) Every candidate will write a statement of no more than 500 words saying their branch, which positions in LU they do or have held, their experience and the political principles they would seek to apply if elected. If members of a political platform they are obliged to say so.

e) On the ballot papers for principal speakers there will be a ‘Re-Open Nominations option’

f) There is equal representation of both men and women for all regional representatives and post-holders/spokes people. If no women candidates are nominated renominations will be opened. If this occurs a second time two male candidates will be elected for that year.

13) Accountability for internal representatives

The following safeguards to ensure transparency and accountability will apply to all members of the NCC (and other national bodies):

  1. Any member of Left Unity has the right to observe meetings of any national committee or sub-committee/working group the NCC but not speaking or voting rights. The dates and agendas of all meetings will therefore be made available in good time prior to any meetings
  2. All minutes of national committees and working groups will be published within a week
  3. If 25 % of local groups in a region request the recall any regional representative on the NCC or 25% of local groups request the recall a national officer, they will step down and the NCC will organise a re-election. The previous incumbent can stand again if he/she so wishes
  4. If 25% of members in a region sign a request for recall of a regional representative on the NCC they will step down and the NCC will organise a re-election. The previous incumbent can stand again if he/she so wishes

 

14) Accountability and conduct of members elected to external positions

a) All Left Unity members elected to external positions on any form of public body (eg, local councillor, Member of Parliament, Member of the European Parliament, holder of an elected trades union position etc) will adhere strictly to the nationally agreed policies, priorities and principles of LU. Failure to abide by these principles and rules , or to engage in any behaviour which brings the Party into disrepute ,will incur expulsion from the party (subject to the deliberations of the Party disciplinary procedure).

b) Candidates for LU will agree to abide by the following Code of Conduct:

i) In cases where an elected position require the post is carried out on a full time basis, Left Unity members will only draw a maximum of the median national wage (plus legitimate expenses) – donating the surplus to Left Unity. Where an elected position is a full time job Left Unity members will take on no other paid employment.

ii) No Left Unity member will be allowed to continue in any single elected position for more than 5 years

iii) No Left Unity member can stand as an official “Left Unity Candidate” without undergoing the Left Unity selection process at local, regional, or national levels , appropriate to that candidature under Left Unity rules

iv) All Left Unity members serving in elected positions must provide regular report backs at the agreed appropriate, local, regional, or national level, to Left Unity.

v) All Left Unity members holding elected positions won as Left Unity candidates are expected to resign their elected position immediately that they either resign from Left Unity or are expelled from left Unity.

vi) People already in place in elected positions when they apply to join Left Unity will only be allowed to join the Party on the understanding that they will abide by the nationally agreed policies, priorities , tactics and principles, and Code Of Conduct, of Left Unity

7) Finance.

a) The following general principles regarding finance will apply:

i) All monies received by or on behalf of Left Unity shall be applied to further the aim of Left Unity and for no other purpose.

ii) Any bank accounts opened for Left Unity shall be in the name of the Left Unity

iii) Any cheques issued shall be signed by the Treasurer and other nominated members of the NCC

iv) Accounts to be independently audited every year and overseen by the Finance and Audit Committee

v) Left Unity may pay reasonable out of pocket expenses including travel, childcare and meal costs to members or members of national committees. The payments must be recorded and paid on presentation of receipts that justify the expense

vi) The National Treasurer, NCC and Finance and Audit Committee have responsibility for overseeing finance and will present accounts to the Annual Conference

b) The following principles regarding subscriptions will apply:

i. No-one will be excluded through lack of money.
ii. Subscriptions will be fair and equitable.
iii. Subscriptions will be set at a level that will enable all members to participate in activities.

d) The level of subscription set will enable the national organisation to carry out its functions efficiently, as determined by the National Conference.

The initial rate of subscriptions will be as follows:
UNWAGED: £2 per month
LOW WAGED: £4 per month
STANDARD RATE: £8 per month
HIGH WAGED: £20 per month

e) Income will be divided equally between the national organisation and local/regional activities. This will enable branches to fund all legitimate expenses, including travelling expenses, publicity, etc.

Standing Orders Committee

A Standing Orders Committee will be elected each year by OMOV of the national membership. This committee will:

(a) deal with the organisation and arrangements of the Annual Conference and the timing and running of conference agenda, including sending out a prioritised motion or resolution ballot form to each local group, and facilitating the compositing of motions where appropriate.

b) be made up of 11 people; one member from each region but including no members of the NCC

(c) The minutes of all meetings shall be published

(d) The Standing Orders Committee will maintain a set of Procedures & Standing Orders for conducting the business of National Conference that may be amended from time to time by National Conference.

e) Between National Conferences, the Standing Orders Committee shall be the final authority on the interpretation and application of the party’s constitution and procedures.

11) Alterations to the Constitution.

Any changes to this Constitution must be proposed to a National Conference by the NCC, branches or a motion signed by no less than 20 members. Any change must be agreed by at least two-thirds of those members present and voting. The proposed changes must be made public and included in the notice posted announcing the Conference in good time to allow proper consultation

 

 
23 July 2013

86 comments

86 responses to “Detailed consideration of draft constitution (working document 3)”

  1. John Penney says:
    July 23, 2013 at 4:15 pm

    A superb job I think chaps ! And a hard one, for anyone who’s been following the sometimes acrimonious debate !

    I only have one minor proposed amendment, in the Subscriptions proposal in 7 d). I simply think all the levels set are far too high – for an intended mass party, rather than a sect of 24/7 revolutioneries ! I propose an amended set of subs levels : ie

    “d) The level of subscription set will enable the national organisation to carry out its functions efficiently, as determined by the National Conference.

    The initial rate of subscriptions will be as follows:
    UNWAGED: £1 per month
    LOW WAGED: £2 per month
    STANDARD RATE: £4 per month
    HIGH WAGED: £6 plus voluntary optional donation per month”

    • James Youd says:
      July 23, 2013 at 4:38 pm

      Thanks John,
      This looks like a sensible middle way between showing a commitment and at the same time recognising the high cost of living and low wages of the capitalist society we must defeat.

    • Guy H says:
      July 23, 2013 at 11:12 pm

      Agreed John

      I also think we should offer an alternative that encourages participation of those for whom £1 per month is still to high – in the form of a ‘branch solidarity’ collection, allowing branches to collectively pay the subscription dues for members who put in time & effort to the party but are unable to afford the fee.

      7 (d) “The level of subscription set will enable the national organisation to carry out its functions efficiently, as determined by the National Conference.

      The initial rate of subscriptions will be as follows:
      UNWAGED: £1 per month
      LOW WAGED: £2 per month
      STANDARD RATE: £4 per month
      HIGH WAGED: £6 plus voluntary optional donation per month”

      In the case of an unwaged member being unable to afford the minimum subscription rate but showing willing to contribute their time to Left Unity, their branch can make arrangements to collectively pay the subscription rate in their stead.”

  2. Mike Scott says:
    July 23, 2013 at 5:19 pm

    Thanks for that, Richard/James – I know how much detailed work this sort of thing involves! I’ve got a few questions to be answered and points to make:

    ROTATION OF POSTS: I’m not clear what is intended here – is it that someone has to stand down from a particular office after 3 years, or from any LU position? If the latter, is this only for national positions, or does it apply to regional/branch positions as well?

    NATIONAL COLLECTIVE COUNCIL: Sorry, but this does sound a bit like Collective Farms in the Soviet Union! Can we use either “National Council” or “National Representative Council” instead?

    SECTIONS: This appears to be similar to the “Self-Organised Groups” (SOGs) that operate in Unison. I’m in favour of these in principle, but the problem that arose in Unison was that the SOGs became a separate and parallel structure to the rest of the union. The original (and praiseworthy) intent was to encourage disadvantaged groups to get involved in the mainstream, but for many members, they became an end in themselves. For this reason, i suggest that they have a fixed life of 5 years and are then reviewed.

    PUBLISHING OF MINUTES: There will need to be some degree of confidentiality for the minutes of formal Complaints.

    LEVEL OF SUBSCRIPTIONS: I suggested the original figures on the basis that 5,000 members paying (on average) the Standard Rate would raise £120,000, if my arithmetic is right. I think this is adequate for an organisation of that size and am concerned about the dangers/temptations of too much cash sloshing about. I am also concerned that £24 per year is too much for someone who is unwaged and I can’t see why LU would end up doing something just because the SWP has in the past – quite the contrary, in fact! Students and Young People are covered by the original proposal, as either unwaged or low waged.

    QUORUMS: Quorums will be needed for sub-committees, such as the Standing Orders Committee, etc.

    FINALLY: The numbering is all to pot! Please amend quickly, so that future proposed amendments make sense!

    Cheers, Mike

  3. Bernard H says:
    July 23, 2013 at 5:34 pm

    Sorry I haven’t participated earlier.

    Under 6a – branches – I think there should be provision for workplace branches.

    Thanks and congratulations to all those who have obviously put in a huge amount of work to produce this document.

  4. Geoff Halliday says:
    July 23, 2013 at 7:28 pm

    I disagree with some parts of 14

    b) i) I agree that elected representatives in full time positions should not have other paid employment. But I disagree that the salary should be no more than the national median wage. I personally believe this is too low a level given the economic situation many find themselves in. I certainly do not accept the arguments that MPs need to be well paid to attract the “best” candidates, but the reality is many potential LU candidates will be in a position that the proposed salary would be a significant pay cut, and quite possibly not enough to cover their financial commitments. I think it is fine to expect a LU MP to not take their full salary, but I don’t think it is right at this point to determine what a fair salary would be.

    ii) I strongly disagree with the proposal of a maximum term of five years. I think this is good for internal positions within LU, but not for elected representatives (MPs etc). Just one practical implication of this, is that if there were ever to be a LU government, every single member of that government would have a choice between standing down or leaving LU at the next election. There is necessity for continuity as well as change in parliament. I wouldn’t wish for every LU MP to be learning the ropes after every election. I personally wouldn’t set any fixed term; I’d leave it to local members to select/deselect. And whilst I can see the desire to move away from personality politics, the reality is that this policy could have the opposite effect; it provides encouragement for sitting LU MPs to stand independent of the party if they feel they are personally popular enough to be re-elected. It also perhaps encourages corruption, as MPs look to their careers beyond their limited term in office.

    • John Penney says:
      July 23, 2013 at 8:34 pm

      The ONS stats for the UK National median wage as of April 2012 was £28,537. I accept that a lot of middle class people earn a lot more than this, but its an awful lot more than the majority of workers earn (and legitimate expenses incurred in doing the job are to be added on top). A few Left wing MP’s in the past have voluntarily fixed their wage to that of a skilled industrial workers wage in a local industry. That’s a possibility. It comes down to the sort of people, and the sort of personal commitment we are seeking for LU full time politicians.

      The salary issue, and the five year in any public office rule are an attempt to “break the mould” in which a permanent, middle class, professional cadre of well paid full time politicians is quickly created – to inevitably get “all too comfortable” in the clubby atmosphere of Parliament – and the lucrative attractions of prolonged office. We need a large rotatable cadre of angry radicals , in for five years to get our party’s agreed objectives carried out – to be replaced with another tranche of angry party radicals. The supposed benefits of prolonged parliamentary experience, and the level of “skill” required is I suspect, hugely exaggerated !

      Anyway, Conference being the sovereign body, if we got a LU government, or lots of LU led councils, and the party then decided that a longer maximum period in office was required, Conference can amend the 5 year rule if considered appropriate at the time.

      • Guy H says:
        July 23, 2013 at 10:58 pm

        Agreed John – except I don’t think future conferences should be able to change some of these rules.

        The idea that the median wage “is too low” for elected representatives is a contradiction in terms: the notion that you could represent the majority of people goes out the window as soon as you’re earning more than most people. In fact, to be truly representative we should go further and demand the median earnings not just for those in full-time employment but for those on benefits too, which would be somewhat lower. (But as these aren’t published I’m willing to stick to the ONS’s median measure of those in full employment).

        The crucial aspect of internal democracy is to ensure a layer of careerists don’t take over, as we’ve seen countless times both in parties and unions. I’d be inclined to set in stone some of these principles related to internal democracy, to guard against this further and would select sections of the constitution that can’t be altered in the future.

  5. johnkeeley says:
    July 23, 2013 at 9:01 pm

    As you know, not the radical embracing of participatory democracy I would have liked to have seen, but all in all a very good & comprehensive draft constitution. Well done!

  6. Guy H says:
    July 23, 2013 at 11:21 pm

    Proposed alteration to part 8(c) on regional committees: “In England, regional committees of representatives from branches will be organised for the following English regions London, South East, North East, North West, Yorkshire and Humber, East Midlands, West Midlands, Eastern , South West. Each local group will be entitled to send two delegates with speaking and voting rights *(one male and one female)* and as many observers as wish to come.”

  7. Guy H says:
    July 24, 2013 at 12:09 am

    Proposed alteration to 4 (a) vii.

    “Left Unity will operate a preferential voting system to ensure adequate representation of oppressed groups. At least 50% of those elected to national committees will be women. The minimum number of Black & Minority Ethnic members elected to national committees will be proportional to the number of BME people in the UK. Similarly the minimum number of disabled members elected to national committees will be proportional to the number of disabled people in the UK, and the minimum number of LGBTQI members elected to national committees will be proportional to the number of LGBTQI people in the UK.”

    • John Penney says:
      July 24, 2013 at 10:45 am

      Come on now ,Guy H, that over complex representation arrangement is completely unworkable in the real world !

      On the issue of “Set in Stone” components of the Constitution. A Party in which the membership , as Conference (or via some other form of all Member voting – eg, online) , is sovereign , cannot be constrained by the decisions of a previous Conference decision, or a permanently fixed Constitution. That simply isn’t how genuine democracy works.

      • Guy H says:
        July 24, 2013 at 2:44 pm

        What on earth is unworkable or complex about it? I see it being no different whatsoever to gender representation. At the moment 10% of people in the UK are BME, this should be represented in the makeup of our elected bodies. The same with LGBTQI and disabled members. As I see it these groups are being THE MOST affected by austerity, so surely we as a party should at least allow these groups to be adequately represented? Maybe you could expand on why you think it’s appropriate for women but not for other oppressed groups to be adequately represented on elected bodies?

        As for complexity it’s really not difficult, we were all ready to do it for gender at the first meeting we had in May (except we didn’t need to – almost certainly because the meeting itself was gender representative). It is literally a case of casting your eye down the results list and bumping up the relevant candidates if they are under-represented. I’m not suggesting we do it at every level of election (I concede it becomes a barrier to democracy at a local level) – but nationally, why shouldn’t it be the case that out of the 17 elected members of the council, 2 be BME, 2 disabled and 1 a member of the LGBTQI community (as per latest ONS data)?

        It’s no coincidence that the left is dominated by white men – these are the people that society teaches to dominate, they are the ones that feel the most comfortable standing up and dogmatically defending their point of view in front of a crowd. This imbalance gradually becomes acceptable in the group since no oppressed groups are given a voice to challenge the notion that an alternative would be ‘unworkable’. For instance, is there ONE woman or BME person in the 30+ people involved with this commission?!

        The inevitable outcome of not confronting this problem head on through quota systems and the like is that we don’t connect with the people who are being most affected by the very thing we’re fighting against. Speaking to women and BME people about their experiences on the left I am invariably met with “we don’t feel represented”. If we are serious about making this party into something that will challenge austerity, we have to make ourselves an attractive proposition to these people who simply don’t have a voice at the moment.

    • Ray G says:
      July 31, 2013 at 8:29 pm

      And how many LGTB people are there in society? Do you only mean open ‘defined’ LGTB people (like me!) or the secret majority. In any case these definitions are questionable in themselves.

      • Guy H says:
        July 31, 2013 at 10:27 pm

        That is of course an issue Ray – I wouldn’t know how to approach that. But I think we must absolutely give oppressed groups a voice in our organisation if we are to succeed, and that means through at least some form of positive discrimination

  8. Mike Scott says:
    July 24, 2013 at 11:59 am

    John is right – the draft already says that any decision of the Conference can be overturned and Guy’s proposal contradicts that. Also, having been a member and worked for a union (UNISON) trying to operate rigid proportionality, I can tell you that it’s impossible in practice – you just end up with lots of gaps in delegations because the “right” people haven’t stood in the first place.

    Also, you can’t have “as many observers as wish to come” going to meetings without saying how their travelling expenses will be paid – if they have to pay, that discriminates against those less well-off and if they don’t, it risks bankrupting the branch!

    Cheers, Mike

  9. Hoom says:
    July 24, 2013 at 1:15 pm

    Excellent work. Things are really starting to take shape!

    6 Branches-

    b) I’d either reword this or delete the word “policies”. At the moment, it appears like individual members or branches aren’t allowed to disagree publicly from specific LU policies. Not only is this unrealistic, I suspect it’s not your intention.

    9 National Conferences

    d) I’m against this in its entirety as it presents moving to a delegate structure as inevitable rather then a subject for discussion when the time comes. However, considering this is talking about a hypothetical situation, it’s not a fight I feel the need to have at this point.

    f) Replace the first five words with “individual members of Left Unity”. Giving special privileges to platforms and sections is a dilution of the principle of OMOV. It’s also against what people seem to be mostly aiming for- LU is supposed to be member led, not platform led. We also need the rules for amendments, procedural motions etc. laid out I think- the process needs to be open to everyone which requires clear understanding.

    15 Finance

    You need to get your numbering sorted out- this is currently down as a second “7”. ;)

    More importantly, can you clarify e)? Is the division of finance specifically talking about subs received or does it include local fundraising efforts by branches? I’m in favour of the former but not the latter- branches may need to raise funds for specific events.

    • Ray G says:
      July 31, 2013 at 8:49 pm

      Hoom

      Yes, I agree with you on 9f. Allowing people to organise as platforms and factions is one thing but why should they have more of a say than any other LU member who decides not to be in a ‘platform’ and is just loyal primarily to LU?

  10. Mike Scott says:
    July 24, 2013 at 5:47 pm

    FINANCE: My intention in proposing this was that money raised through subs should be split up in this way, rather than all/most of it going to service a national structure. So any additional cash branches raise will be their own – however, at some point in the future, we may want to ensure that branches don’t build up massive reserves that are rarely drawn on.

    “Branches”, in this respect, would be those with agreed minimum levels of membership and organisation, with Start-Up Funds for new branches.

    Mike

  11. DougThorpe says:
    July 24, 2013 at 6:35 pm

    Just a small point. At the end of 3) b) ii I thing we should add “, and shall not be eligible to stand for any elected position.”

    Personally on 9d I disagree and believe the National Conference should be delegate based from the start. But having seen the contributions I am prepared to accept I am in a minority in this Commission and agree the current draft as the starting point; but will support an amendment to this point later

  12. gerryc says:
    July 24, 2013 at 10:36 pm

    Thanks for the opportunity: I agree with what’s currently included in the rules related sections.

    RE 2) Aims …
    The first para reads like we are a party for specialists interests only. It’s not just the listing of all the groups – it’s also the positioning of this as the very first lines. Think of the emphasis this gives the document to newcomers / outsiders. Even if you disagree, there is tons of evidence on the LU site and from LU conferences that many believe we should eschew “in-your-face” historical, left, class-war vocabularies and dogmas because they are not correctly understood / fail to win the support of many with more contemporary consciousness (because of the perception of all the projects that went badly wrong). Many believe we want the support of such people too. Look at the current article re Should Left Unity call itself ‘Socialist’? for example. Ken wants the left to unite FOR the good of the common man right, not for its own sake.

    So at the very least this issue and this approach should be put to the vote. I’ve offered you a voting mechanism so we could test some alternatives on a sample audience and/or just vote at the policy committee or put two versions to the membership for vote.

    But before that, maybe we could agree a compromise modification? Would something along these lines be acceptable?

    A.”Our aim is to represent the interests of ordinary people who want a
    fairer, more equal and just society than is offered by the converging
    capitalist agendas of the Labour, Liberal and Conservative parties: we
    will endeavour to provide a new unifying platform for the disparate
    voluntary, work-related, political, cooperative and campaigning groups
    already working toward this end.”
    B. As you have it but with the following small changes …

    “working people” –> just “people”, Neo-liberalism is work-centered, we are people-centered right? Many can’t and don’t work, we are for them too.

    “democacally planned economy.” –> “economy”. I’m not the only one whose knee jerk reaction to this phrase is ‘does that mean is command economy with the risks of famine / incompetence. etc.” It’s an esoteric reference for many, actually will take yonks to arrange, is hard to conceive, raises ghosts of bad experiments past (lots of great state interventions – many not at all democratic). Our challenge to the neo-liberal economy/culture will be vital – and it will be vital to convince the country we have something that will cherish their livelihood / is sound. It’s enough at this stage, with everything else you’ve sid about democracy (yr c makes sure they will get the message you think it;s very important) to just to say “an economy that is environmentally sustainable, within which all enterprises …”

    ATB, Ged.Cavander@hotmail.co.uk

    • John Penney says:
      July 25, 2013 at 10:41 am

      Your “kneejerk hostility” to the essential need for comprehensive (democratic) economic planning under a radical Left government is completely misplaced. Though your comments suggest you are some sort of radical liberal democrat rather than any sort of socialist, Ged, so maybe it just comes down to a fundamental difference in our political and philosophical objectives.

      I, and most radical Socialists, believe that (setting aside the complete Red Herring of the totalitarian Stalinist bureaucracy’s “Five Year Plans) without the basic framework of comprehensively integrated (democratically determined) production and consumption, and environmental , and urban , etc , PLANNING at a national and eventually international level, combined with common ownership of the natural monopolies, it is completely impossible to move beyond the chaotic , wasteful, greed-based competitive jungle system of capitalism.

      If this all sounds a bit too reminiscent of “stalinist Command Planning” , this is purely in form , not content. There is of course also an incredible amount of large scale resource and infrastructure planning going on constantly under capitalism too, but purely to facilitate the continuation of this rapacious system of exploitation of course. To believe that a rational, equalitarian, but still dynamic, minimally wasteful, advanced industrial society can be run on some sort of unplanned, spontaneous basis, but still move “beyond capitalism” is to fall into the small craft communities delusions of many middle class utopian socialists and Liberal idealists of the 19th century.

      An advanced industrial society based on a highly complex division of labour – simply does require a massive planning infrastructure. Even more so a socialised economy aimed at equity and fairness in the distribution of the output of this productivity. Small collectives of self-determining individual producers and consumers in worker and consumer co-ops just isn’t going to do it.

      We need to be up front about this in our pronouncements; even restructuring the UK economy away from parasitic financial services to manufacturing, and repairing the chronic regional development disparities , and building hundreds of thousands of new homes, and creating millions of god quality new jobs, will take resource planning on a massive scale.

  13. Lee Rock says:
    July 25, 2013 at 3:39 pm

    Hi All

    Apologies for the late contribution (baby daughter born on the 16 of July keeping me and my partner Tina busy!).

    Anyways:

    Firstly, I think we need to mention an electoral system for our L/U internal elections. I am all for STV.

    On the present draft:

    The term ‘ordinary’ people has no real meaning. To me, it comes across as patronizing. I am therefore proposing this term be deleted.

    At the end of 2a the term ‘working people’ is used. This ignores students, pensioners, unemployed and ‘homemakers’. I am therefore proposing the term be replaced by ‘working class’.

    At the start of 2b the expression to ‘win a mandate to govern and introduce’ suggests a top-down approach. I am therefore proposing it be deleted and replaced with ‘seek’.

    I am also proposing the deletion of the term ‘British’ on the basis that we will seek changes further than just in ‘British’ society.

    On membership, at 3ai I propose deleting ‘commits to further’ and replace with ‘accepts’.

    On Structure and general principles I am for deleting 4a iv and vii.

    On 4 ix I am for deleting ‘and a politics of endless polemical debating, resolution passing and point scoring.’ One persons ‘point scoring’ is another persons important principle. This type of statement is off putting those who do wish to discuss theory and practice (sounds a bit like the SWP/SP in their attempts to keep internal ‘dissidents’ quiet!).

    On 8c I think there is a big problem in allocation of representatives that ignores numbers. For example, if one region had 20 members and another had 200 members they both get 2 representatives. In the German SPD of old it was the smaller less organized areas that dominated congresses on the basis of this type of split. This resulted in a level of conservatism as these weaker areas were less confident and therefore less radical than the larger ones – but they had the same level of representation.
    I suggest that there be 25 representatives from the regions, based on the members levels with a minimum of 1 representative from each region.

    That is all for now! I will be looking properly at sections 9 onwards later.

    Comradely

    Lee

  14. timlessells says:
    July 25, 2013 at 7:06 pm

    hi everyone this is tim from leicester. i just joined.

    i have some other points i wish to make but i’d just like to start with this one. it rings serious alarm bells for me straight away.

    “iv) Platforms/Tendencies are not expected, however, to organise public campaigns against the overall aims or policy of the party.”

    what does that even mean?

    it strikes me that this is an invitation for a future leadership of the party to clamp down on platforms / groups which disagree with it.

    why shouldn’t platforms or tendencies publically disagree with some policies of the new party? if they want to write a critical article in their journal, write online, hold a public meeting or whatever then so what? why can’t they do this?

    i want an open, democratic party that allows tendencies and platforms (and individuals) to operate and speak publically if they so choose. discussion and debate within the new party should be open, not hidden from the wider working class and socialist movement.

    i would propose that this part is fully deleted.

    faternally,

    tim lessells

    leicester lu

    • Guy H says:
      July 25, 2013 at 10:39 pm

      I agree, but with one difference. I think if platforms used the LU banner to campaign against the generally agreed LU position, that it would be in conflict with the democratic procedures that we are talking about here, and potentially destabilising to the organisation. For example, in the context of today you could the sake of argument end up with LU as a whole opposing the west arming the Free Syrian Army, with a platform of people backing it. For me, having a branch producing leaflets under the banner of LU that came out backing this position, in contradiction with the majority agreed position, it would be an issue.

      I would suggest something along the lines that platforms can oppose the policy of the party but that they must do so in their own capacity, i.e. identifying their campaign as distinct from the position of Left Unity.

  15. Lee Rock says:
    July 25, 2013 at 10:03 pm

    Hi

    A good point Tim and I agree, best to simply delete that part.

    I also think the whole aims part is up for a major discussion. I would certainly want to see more about the type of society we need (socialism) and how we are to achieve it.

    Fraternally

    Lee

  16. timlessells says:
    July 26, 2013 at 9:45 am

    ok, i take your point guy, but i still feel that it’s not needed in the constitution.

    agree with lee on aims.

    when i next get time i will write some more.

    not easy to come up with a constitution so well done to the people who got this far!

    fraternally,

    tim

  17. Mike Scott says:
    July 26, 2013 at 10:07 am

    PLATFORMS/TENDENCIES: I think the fundamental question here is not any of the ones that have been raised above, but “are we actually serious about creating a new left party that will be different from all of the initials?”

    To allow factions to openly campaign against agreed policies isn’t democracy, it’s suicide. The result would be an open invitation to the current left parties to undermine decisions they don’t like and would (very rapidly) lead to the collapse of LU. If anything like this is agreed in November, we might as well pack up and go home, because the party will be over (excuse pun).

    The lessons of previous attempts to set up independent left parties are there for all to see – and the initials haven’t changed their views or way of operating in the meanwhile. Cynical? No, realistic.

    Mike

    • Guy H says:
      July 26, 2013 at 3:24 pm

      Mike, whilst I agree that factions/tendencies can and do destroy parties, I would equally say that not accounting for different points of view within a party does the same.

      Tendencies will develop within the party whether we like it or not – like-minded people have irreconcilable differences. Nothing we put in the constitution is going to stop that. And when the tendencies aren’t permitted to make their voices heard, they invariably split. It’s the story of the UK left. The dogged rejection of plurality.

      The crucial thing is therefore how we can make the party a place where minority opinions can exist, tendencies can form, and argue their viewpoint, without it threatening the stability of the party. For me this means a pluralist approach to what people can do and say when speaking and acting for themselves, but a disciplined approach to what they can do and say when acting on behalf of the party.

  18. TomB says:
    July 26, 2013 at 12:39 pm

    This looks to me like a very well thought out document and, especially taking in some of the additions proposed by comrades Lee Rock and Guy H, a charter I would be more than happy to sign up to. Well done to all involved!

  19. Jonno says:
    July 26, 2013 at 1:18 pm

    ‘2) Aims The aims of Left Unity are:

    a) to unite the diverse strands of radical and socialist politics in the UK including worker’s organisations and trade unions; ordinary people, grass root organisations and co-operatives rooted in our neighbourhoods and communities; individuals and communities facing discrimination because of gender, ethnicity, age, disability or sexuality; environmental and green campaigners; campaigners for freedom and democracy; all those who seek to authentically voice and represent the interests of working people’

    well done for all the hard work but please please add something about , unwaged/unemployed, etc in this part of the document, millions are not ‘working people’ in the literal sense, with more added by the day, despite media statistics about lower unemployment.

    btw, I really didn’t see the problem with ‘citizens’, you can take identity politics too far.

    • Lee Rock says:
      July 26, 2013 at 7:53 pm

      Hi Jonno

      I have suggested above amending the ‘working people’ to ‘working class’ for exactly the reasons you outline.

      The problem with ‘citizens’ is two-fold: firstly, it includes the wealthiest etc in society, and secondly, the definition of ‘citizens’ for some can exclude those hear illegally or temporarily.

      Regards

      Lee

  20. juanesquivo says:
    July 26, 2013 at 2:58 pm

    Re 2B:

    OK, it’s an attempt to define the socialism which the party will stand for and I’m sure it’s not an easy task and writing by committee is never easy.

    Still…

    1. It definitely needs some editing to make it more readable and to get rid of unnecessary repetition, for example: “radical and fundamental”, “the people and wider society”

    2. Is “community ownership” intended as a catch-all term including all forms of social ownership, including nationalisation, or is it some local form of social ownership? The term is not clear. Does it mean something different from “public ownership”, which is also used in the same paragraph. If the new party is going to be in favour of nationalisation, municipal ownership and other forms, it would be better to spell these things out and indicate more about which organisations will be taken into which forms of social ownership.

    3. It’s great that the party wants a “democratically planned economy”. Unfortunately, it is not at all clear what a “democratically planned economy” would be and how it would work. This needs (some) spelling out. After the failures of (inadequately democratic) planned economies, it is important to say how democracy and economic planning can be combined and why we should expect a “democratically planned economy”, unlike the failed 20th century planned economies, to be successful enough to provide the prosperity and security which people want.

  21. Mike Scott says:
    July 26, 2013 at 6:54 pm

    PLATFORMS/TENDENCIES: Guy – I’ve got absolutely no problem with differing points of view and I admire your optimism, but not everyone wants to go the same way! I’ve always said that I’ll work with anyone who’ll work with me and that’s been the basis for my career in a famously argumentative trade union – but if people aren’t prepared to compromise, all bets have to be off. It’s another form of the famous debate about protecting the rights to free speech of those who don’t believe in free speech and want to use it to shut us up or get us out – if we’re going to be all cuddly about this, we’ll be toast and pretty quickly.

    There’s no issue at all with ad-hoc groups coming together to argue a particular point, but that’s quite different from permanent organised factions which will be a “party within the party”. You’re right that it’s difficult to stop this happening, but that just means we have to be cleverer and try harder. In the end, it will never be possible to unite the whole left, because the whole left doesn’t actually want to be united. With some people and some groups, you have to say “go with us, or go your own way” – it’ll be their choice.

    Cheers, Mike

  22. DougThorpe says:
    July 26, 2013 at 7:02 pm

    As far as platforms go I support Guy’s approach. Could we amend the previous clause to:
    iii) Platforms have a right to be heard, to organise meetings, to produce literature, to distribute materials at LU meetings and, in general, to try to influence and/or change party policy, but must not do so in the name of LU or any of its constituent bodies.

    and then just delete 7 iv as a whole (or at very least delete “or policies” from it)

    In 2b second line – i would propose changing “community ownership” to “social ownership”

  23. gerryc says:
    July 27, 2013 at 10:04 am

    Electoral reform – LU internal

    RE 12) “National elections within LU
    d) Every candidate will write a statement of no more than 500 words saying ”

    At the first national meeting we had to vote for people we knew nothing about – so this will be a improvement. But one 500 word statement won’t level the playing field for candidates: those with time and money will take plenty of opportunities to get around and have an big advantage over those without one or both time and money. Can we do more to make outcome – how much voters know about candidates – more equal?

    A Skype-recorded video of 10 mins max? A 500 manifesto statement posted on a blog where everyone can ask question and get answers no few than x days before voting?

    We should beef up the definition of what candidates should make available when running, as well as insuring the required items are not costly.
    Or perhaps the first vote should be to choose the top three candidates on the basis of only the 500 words and then additional information / forums be provided to enable us to make an informed vote on the final 3?

    Does anyone else support concern?

    ATB, Gerry

  24. gerryc says:
    July 27, 2013 at 10:05 am

    Electoral reform – Funding

    especially re Funding: a major problem for fair government is party funding for elections and other benefits for political reps. Allowing capitalist to fund election campaigns is an evil element in our own and the US democratic process. Are we going to take action on this and challenge this corruption of democracy.

    I think we should be saying something to effect:
    1. Business funding of political parties illegal.
    2. Personal funding of political parties capped to % of earnings.
    3. Politicians paid by the state only.

    No business funding and we should not accept trade union funding either.

    Quaifying parties and their elected representatives will be provided with standard index linked election bursary for the purposes of making their case to the electorate in a uniform and equal way.

    ATB, Gerry

    • John Penney says:
      July 27, 2013 at 3:58 pm

      What a quite extraordinary proposal, Gerry ! You see “The State” (that’s the CAPITALIST state”) as a desirable sole funder of political parties ? Unfair and corrupt as current funding often is, at least the capitalist state doesn’t set the political ground rules for which parties have cash, and which don’t. You seriously think that the capitalist state wouldn’t set criteria for funding which wouldn’t rule out a radical socialist party which seriously threatened the capitalist status quo ?

      You also see something wrong with Left parties getting funding from the key defensive organisations of the working class , the Trades Unions ! Trades Union funding is NOT in any way equivalent to funding from the tiny elite of big business corporations. Trades Unions represent significant sections of the working class in the workplace, and have every right, indeed a responsibility, to assist the working class to wage the political struggle in the electoral arena too. That you see trades union funding and Big business funding as equivalent suggests you have drunk deeply and uncritically of the bogus arguments of the capitalist press, Gerry.

      Capitalist funding of their chosen political parties, covert or open, can never be prevented, as long as capitalism continues. Tough. “Suck it up”, and move on. Left Unity doesn’t want to “get into bed” with the capitalist state for its funding. we need to get our funding from a mass membership, and sympathetic trades unions.

  25. gerryc says:
    July 27, 2013 at 10:35 am

    SOCIALISM, LEFT and LU VOCABULARY

    “If this all sounds a bit too reminiscent of “stalinist Command Planning” , this is purely in form , not content.” (John P)

    Ah, then John it’s not very important? After all, you can explain, explain and explain again to every prospective voter what the actual case is? How much good will that do us John. Let’s just not conjure the reminise / response / knee jerk in the first place and keep our communications as clear and unambiguous as possible.

    But. I suggest we try to deal with this long running ‘form’ issue and reach a position we can all support – it comes up on almost every discussion doesn’t it?

    I propose we form another policy commission thread to discuss and agree a policy proposal for the terminology to be used in external facing communications of LU (not for discussion here people can say what they like).

    You and I will both have a collection of names from these page of people vitally interested in this issue – including Ben M, Andy C, Salman etc. What do you think?

    ATB, Gerry

    • John Penney says:
      July 27, 2013 at 3:37 pm

      Gerry, if you seriously think that the current disastrous UK economic and employment wasteland outside of the London hinterland is going to be transformed into a dynamic manufacturing-rich economy with a much reduced dependency on parasitic financial services, providing good jobs for everyone across all the regions of Britain, without the creation and implementation of a coherent joined-up “national recovery plan”, you are deluding yourself.

      There appears to be a “kneejerk” hostility to the concept of nation-wide resource planning, (of course within a framework of democratic control and accountability), and the bringing into public ownership and democratic control of the banks and all the “natural monopolies”. That this very traditional, basic “socialist planning for maximum public benefit” strategy is viewed by some as innately “oppressively Stalinist” demonstrates just how well the capitalist mass media have inculcated their anti socialist message over the last 30 years or so – even amongst those who think themselves “on the Left”.

      Mind you even US President Roosevelt was accused by many as a “covert Communist” for his massive, national “New Deal” infrastructure, training, and jobs” programme in the 1930’s, which got millions of Americans back to work ! And as for the totally integrated WWII wartime planning and control , that utilised all our national resources in one national effort – and saved our national bacon ! Crikey, we must have been a Stalinist state in those days !

      I don’t think potential LU voters will be repulsed by a well explained manifesto which promises a National Economic Recovery programme, to utilise all our nation’s resources to get millions of people back to work, restructure our economy, build millions of new homes, and get the tax dodgers under control. If you want to ignore the need for a coherent National Recovery Plan, then you aren’t even as “Left” as the Wilson Government of the 1960’s !

      There certainly needs to be a process within LU to thrash out realistic policy options for a manifesto, and to really define “what we stand for” . That you seriously automatically equate democratic socialist planning with Stalinist bureaucratic command planning , backed by terror, and the Stalin/Mao collectivisation famines, suggests we are about as far apart in terms of historical analysis and basic political perspective as is possible to be.

      So maybe rival political “Platforms” developing alternative proposals , for selection by the membership, are the way to go. I can’t see myself having a useful meeting of minds with you or indeed any of the names you suggest. I’d rather be working with a “Platform” of radical socialists.

  26. gerryc says:
    July 28, 2013 at 6:39 pm

    Hey John, re your “that you seriously … suggests we are about as far apart … as is possible to be.” The issues I’m raising are to do with identifying a transitional platform that a majority of the current population will vote for AND is consistent with progress on the road to socialism. We need to identify what the current consciousness will understand and respond to i.e. ” realistic policy options for a manifesto”.

    That we in LU start far apart is the whole point of the exercise I think.

    Won’t your no compromise stance will lead to failure? Aren’t your view promoted pretty effectively by the SWP – is that recipe looking popular enough to win an election?

    ATB, Gerry

    • Lee Rock says:
      July 28, 2013 at 6:55 pm

      Hi Gerry

      I don’t think we are drafting a constitution simply to win an election.

      The key things to include, in my view, are the aspirations that we campaign for (which means we should not adapt our socialist politics to bring in those to our right) and to ensure we are as democratic as possible so as to allow different minority views the opportunity to become the majority.

      All the best

      Lee

    • John Penney says:
      July 29, 2013 at 4:03 pm

      NO Gerryc. The SWP is an avowedly revolutionary Socialist “vanguard Party” organised on Leninist Principles. The call, which I support, from Ken Loach, was for the formation of a radical, principled, mass party, of the Left, to replace the craven collaboration of New Labour. As Ken has made abundantly clear time and time again, the assumption is that this Party will be a socialist one in underlying philosophy.

      Your reference to a “transitional platform… on the road to socialism” (a strategy with which I wholly concur) sits strangely uncomfortably with many of your actual posts here , which strongly suggest you are no sort of “socialist” at all – but just a radical liberal – unhealthily influenced by the bogus views of the capitalist mass media , eg, “Comprehensive national strategic Planning somehow equals Stalinism!” and “”The capitalist state rather than trades unions should be looked to to fund parties of the Left !” The potential voting and support grouping we need to be targetting our radical Left policies towards won’t be the Daily Mail readers for heavens sake !

  27. Subcultured says:
    July 30, 2013 at 12:54 am

    Hi all,

    Some great points here by everyone I’ve just spent hours reading all of the strands and comments, will add something constructive soon I’m sure, just a hello from me for now though, keep up the good work.

    Interesting how nobody has mentioned 1) yet – I take it we are all happy with Left Unity as the name. I must admit, I couldn’t think of anything better upon racking my brain!

    Agree with previous comments about 2)… get rid of “ordinary” people – “people” are people.

    Same with “working people” mentioned by Lee Rock – falling into the trap of neoliberal language as someone else stated, “working class”… possibly, but again you can be alienating an “underclass” of people who do not work for whatever reason that may be. I think again, “people” could be the answer here, ie “represent the interests of people” – though you may then fall into the trap of this including capitalists and vested interests – it is a tough one to get the language right.

    4 a (vii) – Agree with, disagree with ammendments mentioned by Gerry, too complex to put into practice and would leave us with empty delegations.

    Denying funds from trade unions is suicidal, though big business should be a no.

    Sorry if I am a bit brief, its 1am and my eyelids weigh a ton.

    Mike
    [Interested Socialist].

  28. Dave_E says:
    July 30, 2013 at 3:58 am

    It is a pity that this draft version is a ‘controlled’ version of the discussion. Where the moderators ‘cut out’ what they did not like. Hence, as I said in the original discussion ‘shaping the agenda’. Not a good start to Left Unity at all

    • James Youd says:
      August 14, 2013 at 4:08 pm

      Dave, in no way have the moderators “cut out” anything. Structuring discussion so it takes place in the correct place and doesn’t go completely off topic is not cutting things out. The only place that was done was on a previous thread when the issue of England, Wales, Scotland, NI came up and there is a separate commission for that.

  29. paulstygal says:
    July 30, 2013 at 5:30 pm

    Many thanks to all the people that took part in the draft constitution. A lot has been done in the very limited time that we have, you’ve done a superb job. Pretty happy with the draft as it stands, but I think the subscription rate is too high and not likely to attract membership from unwaged and low wage people [we don’t want to be thought of as a middle class Party do we? :)] – I would therefore agree with the amendment proposal put forward by John Penney.

    Keep up the good work!

    Paul
    Left Unity Southend.

  30. Lee Rock says:
    July 30, 2013 at 11:01 pm

    Hi All

    On the issue of membership subs I think we need to be ‘open’ to unwaged and low waged, and also to be more specific as to what we mean by these terms.
    I am therefore proposing the following replace what is in the present draft:

    Unwaged = £1 per month
    Low waged (Under £20k per year) = £3 per month
    Standard Rate (£20k to £35k) = £10 per month
    High Waged (£35k plus) = £25 per month

    Fraternally

    Lee

  31. Ray G says:
    July 31, 2013 at 2:30 am

    Just To say Hi – now that I have worked out how to join this discussion.

    Also – to say how relieved I am that the documennt that has been drawn up so far is so eminently sensible. I am particularly impressed with the ‘Aims’ section, though ‘ordinary people’ sounds a bit strange to me.

    I think I would prefer a ‘democratically controlled economy’ rather than democratically planned’. The latter just brings back bad, tragic memories of ‘socialism’ gone wrong.

    I will comment further later, but well done!

  32. Ray G says:
    July 31, 2013 at 9:07 pm

    OK – Hi again

    I am against any state funding for political parties. The state is not a neutral arbiter between interest groups – it is part of the repressive machinery of the ruling class. It is madness to become financially dependent on it and, inevitably, regulated by it.

    I am uncomfortable with giving any proposing or voting rights to platforms. I am happy that they exist, but the section under 9f would just allow them to ignore local branch-based democracy and operate as a separate, divisive, entity.

    I favour a higher subs rate as suggested by Lee Rock, although there is a bit of difference between 20k and 35k!! (or maybe I am just stingy as I am towards the lower end of that spectrum). My union (GMB) charges £11 per month on an 24k-ish salary.

    I would very much like to see elected representatives elected at events (real or virtual) where discussion and questions can be raised. I used to be in UNISON about 9 years ago and voting at home for names you barely know is a random, undemocratic, and alienating experience. It sends out the message that it does not really matter who is elected.

    John Penney’s eloquent defence of a ‘planned economy’ is fine but misses the point. I do not object to ending the chaos of purely profit-driven, selfish greedy capitalism, just to the use of a phrase that conjures up all the gross distortions of 80 years of Stalinist misrule, or even Fabian, bureaucratic top-down nationalisation. My suggestion above of a democratically controlled economy is good enough, I feel. The new democratic government has a right and a duty to control and regulate the different private, public, co-operative sectors but it has neither the right or, frankly the ability, to micro-manage the whole economy.

    • John Penney says:
      August 10, 2013 at 11:58 am

      Sorry Ray G, the phrase “democratically controlled economy” , sounds “progressive”, but means absolutely nothing. We supposedly live in one NOW !

      Operating an economy within a comprehensive planning structure does not of course automatically assume “micro-management” of every aspect of the economy. It can do, as per Stalinist Command Economies. But of course it doesn’t have to. A “Planned Economy ” can be any variant of “mixed economy” with the “commanding heights” in public ownership and operating to pretty tight targets, but the rest of the economy operating with considerable operational flexibility within overall guidelines, targets and regulations. The point being that the pre-planned objectives of these targets and regulations would be to maximise the overall public benefit , not individual profitability.

      Without a comprehensive economic planning structure , a supposedly “radical” Left government is simply a well-meaning “passenger” on the great profit-driven locomotive of the capitalist system. Without a comprehensive economic planning structure there is no means to move from the mere “well-meaning administration” of capitalism – to the eventual replacement of capitalism by a socialist economic/social system.

      Social transformation is a long PROCESS ,not a single “revolutionary event”. Intervening dynamically and comprehensively in the key processes and structures of the capitalist economy over a long period of time – and using a comprehensive national economic planning structure to guide and shape this transformation is an absolutely fundamental feature of a genuinely radical Left government – rather than a merely tepidly reformist one – especially in the era of global capitalist crisis today, when minor, limited vision, reform is increasingly impossible. We either work systematically to replace capitalism in the longer term – or we end up collaborating with it in imposing Austerity – just like New Labour, PASOK, etc. etc.

  33. razorsmile says:
    August 1, 2013 at 3:56 pm

    Hi, interesting discussion. Matt Lee from Brighton Left Unity here. A few points. (Too many to be honest but meh)

    1) The writing of a draft might be made better and/or easier by using some collaborative writing tools. There are many around, for example Etherpad is open source and website based(http://etherpad.org/). I suggest the commission coordinators begin experimenting with some such tools in addition to using this page as a summary site of revisions. Whilst I appreciate the hard work that has been done, it needs to be able to be collectively improved much more easily and there also need to be a clear process whereby different positions can be easily articulated and noted. For example, there needs to be some sort of ability to indicate which is the majority opinion with regard points so that at a minimum a majority/minority report is made in cases where consensus cannot be found. A weekly ‘decisions list’ might be useful for example whereby each week a set of amendments is decided upon. This long thread in a single forum page is entirely incapable of facilitating such collective production of a document successfully. I’m happy to help with technical issues if need be.

    2)I share concerns expressed by timlessells about section 7b point iv) and would agree to the proposal to delete this. It’s intentions might be valid but it is open to abuse (who defines ‘public campaign’ or the ‘overall aims of the party’, it’s far too vague at the moment and I’m not sure it would be easy to find a suitable replacement form of words).

    3) Section 9, xi (numbering a bit weird) seems odd where it says “the principle of ‘meet as often as is genuinely needful will apply’ will be rigorously applied”. Firstly, the phrasing should presumably be ‘meet only as often as is …’ but again there seems to be a possible hostage to fortune problem here; ie. who gets to decide the ‘genuine need’ or the ‘rigorous applications’ of such need. I propose that the section instead read, ‘There is to be at least one national conference per year, with a minimum of one months notice’.

    4) On section 9d I agree with some comments about the presumption of organising means and propose deleting the phrase ‘However, when Left Unity reaches 2000 paid members the national committee will draw up proposals to move towards a delegate structure of decision making’. This is a debate to be had when needed, which is not at this moment.

    5) There is a problem with establishing membership percentage limits to recall / activation clauses. If we say ‘25% of members’ is enough to call a special conference, for example, who decides the number of members? Even if we have transparent membership numbers, what constitutes a member? Imagine a group of 2000 members. 25% is 500 people and so that sounds fine. But when it’s a 20000 then this becomes 5000 people. Now what if some 5000 of that 20000 are ‘paper members’, nothing but people signed up and paying dues through a standing order. Indeed we might even imagine a situation where a faction deliberately signs up a whole range of people in order to block the percentage recall mechanism. There is no easy solution to this perhaps but I’m inclined to suggest a fixed number of members – say 500 – rather than a percentage. The numbers would be different in section 13, accountability for internal representatives. There I would suggest the number 50. Obviously those numbers can be amended at a future date if we become a mass membership party.

    6) Regarding section 12 National Collective Council, I agree with some comments on the name ‘National Collective Council’. It’s cumbersome and unnecessary, just National Council would do. I also agree with problems about regional representation mentioned by Lee Rock on 25th July with regard section 8c but these comments presumably also apply to section 12e. If regional representatives are ‘weighted’ then the issue, of course, is ‘according to what and by whom’.

    7) Regarding section 12 National elections with LU (numbering off), the subsection 12d is fine but needs some phrasing about the distribution of those hustings statements. I would propose adding the sentence, ‘The National Secretary shall be charged with distributing all election statements to members of LU in an equal and impartial manner’.

    8) Regarding membership fees (section 7, finance) I propose that unwaged members have ‘membership by donation, where donation is understood as either time or money’ or ‘free membership’.

    9) The issue of maximum terms of office is, I think, a more substantive problem and whilst I take on board the pragmatic nature of some of the comments opposed to this I thin John Penney is right to pursue the idea of ‘breaking the mould’. We need to strongly pursue the idea of collective, democratic action and try to find ways to resist the attempts by the media and state to channel the party into ‘existing methods of activity’ in parliament and the like, whereby a professional cadre are established (career politicians) who form an inside knowledge base and then inevitably control the access to power. To resist, in this situation, means imposing direct controls on the possibility of individuals becoming ‘key figures’ and ending up standing in for the party as whole. Limiting terms seems a straight forward mechanism for doing this important political job.

  34. Alan Thornett says:
    August 1, 2013 at 5:17 pm

    I have been away and out of touch so have come to this discussion a bit late – so a few thoughts. Although there is a lot in the draft constitution which I agree with I essentially agree with the comments Sean T makes in strands 2 and 3. In other words (I think this is what Sean is saying) that the draft lacks the kind of clear (and adequately resourced) decision making process which an activist party of this type would require.
    First, therefore, on the National Council – which I would prefer to the proposed National Collective Council I would say the following. I agree with the proposed principle of electing the NC on a regional basis and of electing specific named officers at annual conference. I don’t think, however, that a body of 37 people meeting 8 times a year can adequately run an organisation involved in a multiplicity of campaigns as we hope will be the case.
    I think therefore that we should have either an executive or an officers group which can run the organisation between NC and can meet as often as necessary (depending on campaigning and other demands) in order to do so. I say this for democratic as well as practical considerations since if this does not exist it will leave the individual officers to take decisions without collective oversight.
    On section 14 – accountability of those elected to external office.
    I have two points on this:
    Point ii: “No Left Unity member will be allowed to continue in any single elected position for more than 5 years”. I don’t think this makes sense. If left Unity won a position in Parliament and our MP won a big following and a lot of respect why would we not want him or her to stand for a second term?

    Point v) “All Left Unity members holding elected positions won as Left Unity candidates are expected to resign their elected position immediately that they either resign from Left Unity or are expelled from left Unity”. The fact is that we have no control what-so-ever over anyone who leaves LU or is expelled from it, and we should give the impression that we do.

    There are a number of things included in the draft which maybe OK in themselves but are out of place in a constitution. For example paragraph ix of part 4. I think part 10 also comes in that category, which is more a policy issue than a constitutional one.

    On disciplinary procedure. Although there is a threat of expulsion in the draft constitution (which I feel uncomfortable with) there appears to be no disciplinary procedure set out (unless I have missed it). A disciplinary procedure is definitely should a constitutional issue and a key one. And after the events in the SWP it is very important to get it right.
    Finally, like Sean, I am uneasy, although I accept that this might be controversial, that an initiative taken in England and which involves overwhelmingly English people is proposing setting up structures in Wales and Scotland – particularly in Scotland where there is already an organised left, despite the damage done to it in recent years.
    Alan Thornett

    • FatOldSon says:
      August 13, 2013 at 4:03 am

      Alan, I am confused, where did the idea come from that English people are setting up structures in Wales & Scotland? Left Unity groups are active in a number of cities in Scotland (some more than others, true), where they were put together by people resident in Scotland (with quite a few different nationalities). One of the debates we have regularly is how we will operate after the referendum next year, since we would still see ourselves as a part of a UK wide party, whether the vote is for or against independence. We look out towards like-minded groups throughout Europe to make alliances with, and we see ourselves as Internationalists.

      As for the idea of an “organised left”, it continues to damage itself. Why would we give up all we have worked for so far, to hand it to a party who
      a) still cannot work with its own members
      b) has drifted so far out of the political picture as to be pretty much
      invisible, and
      c) continues to haemorrhage support and drive away any potential voters.
      So is that your considered opinion on how Left Unity is to progress in Scotland? I’ll be happy to be called disorganised in that case. There is even a draft document being passed around Scotland which sets out a proposed structure for Left Unity in Scotland as part of a UK wide party.

      Please don’t think that we are just sitting around up here waiting for some nice English person to come along and propose setting up a structure for us!

      Best Wishes,

      Joe Barr.

  35. gerryc says:
    August 3, 2013 at 6:17 pm

    Come on JohnP – ‘democratically planned economy’ I’m not the only pseudo capitalist on this thread!? Ref Rag G’s “democratically controlled” – I could accept this if just “planned economy” isn’t enough.

    And talking of democracy: I agree with Dave_E, this draft is being levered through. Only to be expected when the convenor is also the author.

    Again I suggest we vote first on the draft statement to refine:

    http://communityvote.wufoo.com/forms/the-aims-section-progress-voting/

    And then discuss each item (small group of related items) in turn (with perhaps 1 week for all to make and post and then vote)and then vote on them.

    This way we can progress democratically / like a traditional debate.

    Hoom: one vote, one registered email address. I can report back all the results to all the participants for validation and turn the machinery over to the convenors.

    “It seems like we have consensus” is based on cliques/who can spend most time camping on the threads. Why not be democratic?

    ATB, Gerry

  36. gerryc says:
    August 5, 2013 at 8:59 pm

    Acceptable corruption?

    John, you say it’s bad that capitalists can fund parties but we should accept it as its better than state control. You did say you were a radical (I don’t like to call people names).

    The fact that capitalists fund politics in the most powerful countries of the world is a major root strength of capitalism and a major cause of inequality injustice and war all over the world. How can we expect governments put into power by capital to run the country for the people?

    We can frame a law – just like we have inheritance tax, trade union law, freedom of speech law, charities – that parties formed and run according to certain rules are granted limited allowances for the purposes of broadcasting their message for electoral purposes. Like we can frame a law that national TV stations allow all parties equal coverage – same with papers.

    People will vote for this policy – they are well aware of the craziness of the money spent on elections and on counter elections by the powers that be.

    How happy are we that left movements are dependent on the vicissitudes of union funding? How successful has it been? Hang on a minute – aren’t we trying to offer an alternative to LABOUR?

    Suggesting we don’t tackle this because it’s difficult isn’t right. Let’s just give up on trade union law huh, cos the state can interfere with it?

    ATB, Gerry Cavander

    • John Penney says:
      August 10, 2013 at 11:34 am

      Dearie me gerryc. Yep, I’m a radical socialist. You aren’t. You really don’t “get” the nature and role of the capitalist state do you ? It’s there to defend the status quo capitalist system, not to fund radical parties seriously intending to damage the interests of the capitalist class !

      I’ll settle for funding for a radical Left party from a mass membership, and hopefully some trades unions too . As if it would ever be possible to prevent the superrich from slipping £millions one way or another to their favoured pro-capitalist parties. They never obey “the law” when it doesn’t suit them for heavens sakes.

      Given your naivety about the nature of the state, and evident hostility to the trades union movement , I really think you belong in the Greens or even the Lib Dems, not a radical Left party, Gerry.

  37. Lee Rock says:
    August 7, 2013 at 12:45 pm

    Hi

    Do the convenors of this commission have some proposals, and timescale, as to how we can draw up the next draft?

    Fraternally

    Lee

  38. gerryc says:
    August 9, 2013 at 9:02 am

    Lee Rock “we are as democratic as possible so as to allow different minority views the opportunity to become the majority.” … but not just now eh … you want to get this draft through and dont have time for any voting.

    I often find those very keen on democracy as a theory are tardy when it comes to putting it into practise. Actions speak louder than words and all that

    We should have voted some junctions in this discussion. Several have said so.

    http://communityvote.wufoo.com/forms/the-aims-section-progress-voting/

    “The movie ends in a cliffhanger, and will continue in the second part of the movie. Will Lee Rock return to his principles of honesty and justice or ascend to higher ranks…”

    ATB, Gerry C

    All the best

    • Lee Rock says:
      August 14, 2013 at 11:05 pm

      Gerry

      Why be so offensive?

      Read my post properly: I am simply asking if there are proposals and timescales as to how we can draw up a next draft.

      A ‘next’ draft – not a final one.
      How are they proposing we do this?
      And a timescale.

      And if you bother to consider the fact that I have suggested a number of amendments to the present draft, it would be contradictory and stupid of me to want to rush the present one through!

      Lee

  39. elainemc says:
    August 13, 2013 at 2:45 pm

    Hi,

    Apologies for my late arrival on this commission and forum, may I commend the great work that has already been done. I spent the weekend getting up to speed with the diverse posts and discussions. I wish to share my respect for the wealth of knowledge and experience amongst those taking part in these debates, being relatively new to all of this I feel like I’m in an internal democracy haze. I‘d like to thank Abu for welcoming contributions, posting to these forums can be daunting.

    Political disclosure: A member of UCU but disappointed with the low level of engagement in national campaigns at local branch in Liverpool.

    With no other political affiliations or engagement I’m afraid I have no lessons to bring about the way socialist, labour, trade union and green movements have been organised, but I have developed a number of constitutions for voluntary cultural and social organisations. I hope that my view could offer an insight into how we present Left Unity to current and potential members; how we are organised and how we work together.

    Richard and James have done an excellent job of collating ideas and suggestions. I feel that by editing and restructuring some of the sections, the rules and guidelines for taking part could be clearer. And as previously discussed we should consider how we democratically gain agreement from members. (Maybe we could incorporate Gerry C’s voting system or we could utilise local branch meetings to feed into this development process)

    In the aim to keep my response as brief as possible I have three main points to make:

    1. 1) Aims

    As mentioned by Richard, John P & John K, the aims should be as wide/broad as possible but I disagree that the aims are Left Unity’s Mission Statement. The aims are Left Unity’s goals, which leads to measureable objectives detailing how we achieve the aims, and a mission statement is Left Unity’s vision and values. So, very briefly why does Left Unity exist and what are our goals?

    a) to unite the diverse strands of radical and socialist politics in the UK
    b) to fight for alternative social, economic and political policies
    c) to promote a grass roots participatory democratic process that serves and protects the people
    d) to develop a sustainable economy that protects human health and the environment
    e) to actively oppose all forms of prejudice, discrimination and harassment whether on the grounds of gender, race, ethnic or national origin, sexuality, physical ability or mental health

    (These are some suggested aims based on Left Unity’s platform statements, the aims described in the draft constitution and examples given in this forum)

    I think e) is possibly a principle rather than an aim but the aims should be as brief as this. This will enable Left Unity to change activities without amending the constitution, giving us flexibility as we develop. There’s plenty of room for debate, articles and papers about how we fulfil these aims and we can expand on how we go about achieving these goals within the objectives.

    2. 6) Branches
    We should outline the importance of local branches, if we are a grass roots bottom-up organisation then the branches are at the heart of the democratic structure and it should be reflected in the constitution. I’m not at all comfortable with the idea that branches are run as they see fit and decisions to split or merge lie within the branches themselves. I feel we should provide some guidelines in support of the branch administration, organisation and best practice. In this sense I welcomed SeanT’s alternative constitution and the mention of the IOPS model (John K & Duncan B). I have incorporated some of those ideas into my suggestion for Branches:

    a) Branches bring together members and supporters of Left Unity. The branches of Left Unity are where the supreme policy making discussions take place which is then fed into national committees/working groups via representatives.
    b) Individual members will normally be part of the branch based on the geographical area in which they live. In some cases however, an individual member may find it more appropriate to be part of a branch based on where s/he works or studies – but this should be agreed with the branch covering the area where the member lives and that which s/he wishes to join.
    c) A branch must contain at least 10/20/30/? members.
    d) Branches are organised along constituency and ward lines. Branch members can agree to subdivide their branch in liaison with the National Committee.
    e) Branches are expected to conduct the group meetings in accordance with the national rules, principles and policies of Left Unity. Basic democratic standards will be expected to apply: meetings to be accessible, all members informed of meetings and agendas circulated in good time, discussions conducted respectfully, group officers to be annually elected and subject to recall.
    f) Branches should meet monthly at least and aim to organise activities (e.g. further meetings, stalls, leafleting etc.) on a fortnightly basis.
    g) Branches may elect representatives to regional bodies and nominate candidates for any of the elected national committees.

    If committed to a truly democratic participatory process then we should develop adequate mechanisms and channels for participation. We should expand on this grass roots bottom-up model in section 10. I think we are missing out on the opportunities that branch meetings can provide. For example, voting, debates, focus groups, live link ups and workshops could take place within branch meetings and then feed into national conferences. I believe that we are in danger of losing members if they do not recognise transparency, feel engaged or represented at a local level.

    * Note for structure – Principles should come before membership

    3. Equal Representation
    Finally I’m concerned that the National Collective Council is not representative and I agree with Lee Rock this should be looked at more carefully. Based on the current groups listed on the website (I appreciate this isn’t exactly scientific data but it’s what I have access to) I don’t see how 2 groups in the North East can have the same representation as 15 groups in the North West. This isn’t even taking into consideration the numbers within each group.

    I also agree with Guy’s proposal for 4 (a) vii. Given the present austerity and cuts it is important Left Unity makes a commitment to encouraging diverse representation. I don’t think that Left Unity should back away from an organizational structure based on equality because it appears difficult. I’m aware of a number of members who will not be willing to continue with Left Unity if we do not fight for equal representation. Thank you for the ongoing committment to equal representation for women.

    I look forward to taking part in the workshop in September; perhaps we could gather views from branch members prior to meeting in Manchester. Who will be leading the workshop? I’ll be more than happy to help out.

    Best wishes,
    Elaine Mc (Liverpool)

  40. I.Shovlin says:
    August 13, 2013 at 8:48 pm

    Hi all,

    As with Elaine, apologies for my late arrival on this commission but better late than never I guess and hopefully I won’t be the last to get involved!

    I feel the nitty-gritty side of the party structure, processes etc. are pretty much there (hats off to all the hard work done so far on this). However (and I know many will disagree with me on this) I feel the stated aims of the party need to revised. They are the first thing people will read and they will define what the party stands for, who it will attract and more importantly, who it appears to want to attract. It needs to show it is for all, not just the left.

    I think we should explain in the opening paragraph that the aim is to create a new type of political movement in order to unite the diverse strands on the left, rather than just saying our aim is to unite those people. I’ve made slight alterations to the opening aims (listed below) and I think it now does more to highlight the dynamic, grassroots-led way in which the party/movement itself has come about, not just what it hopes to achieve when in government. That in itself is a selling point for people who are sick of political parties in general, it’s certainly something which made me want to get involved.

    I’ve also made slight amendments to the paragraphs b) and c) which I think make them more appealing to society at large (progressive rather than radical for example). I made a new suggestion for the closing line as well.

    Feedback welcome.

    Cheers, Ian

    a) To unite the diverse strands of left-thinking, socialist politics in the UK, by providing a radically different, open, democratically accountable, socially-representative political platform; through which the rights, needs and interests of all affiliated persons, communities, workers, trade unions, grass-root organisations and pressure groups, can be freely expressed in a manner which embraces and promotes a spirit of co-operation, mutual respect, toleration and seeks to protect those facing discrimination because of their gender, ethnicity, age, disability, sexuality, religion, political persuasion or socio-economic circumstance.

    b) to achieve a truly representative mandate to govern and bring about a genuine, fundamental change to British society, which embraces the benefits of co-operation and community ownership instead of the unregulated competition of consumer capitalism, universal human rights, internationalism and peace; social, political and economic equality for all in the fullest sense, without which true democracy and mutual respect cannot flourish; a democratically planned economy that is environmentally sustainable, within which all enterprises, whether privately owned, cooperatives or under public ownership operate in ways that promote the needs of the people and wider society; an inclusive welfare state which meets the needs of all and within which each contributes according to their ability.

    c) to above all, promote grassroots democracy in the understanding that fundamental and progressive change can only come with the support and active involvement from society at large; and that by working with one another, for one another, we can together create the society we all deserve.

  41. I.Shovlin says:
    August 14, 2013 at 10:46 am

    14 B Point ii:

    CURRENT

    “No Left Unity member will be allowed to continue in any single elected position for more than 5 years”.

    I agree with the points made by Alan T If a Left Unity branch managed to elect an MP to parliament on a locally, popular mandate and those individuals did a good job in the role and provided their constituents with a genuine voice and representation in Parliament, then they surely should be allowed to stand a for a second term if that is what the branch members want!

    Reading back through the posts, John Penney has argued that the rationale for five year terms is an attempt to ‘break the mould’. Although I agree with him that we need to end the idea of the ‘career’ politician, I think it is very naive to say all LU politicians have to be new ‘angry radicals’; the quality, consideration, respect, sincerity and conviction with which they represent the views of those who voted for them is what counts.

    I also with what Geoff Halliday said re this and wouldn’t want every LU MP to spend a fifth of their total, not to mention only time in the post, having to get to grips with the role!

    A compromise could be:

    Point ii – AMENDMENT

    “Unless two thirds of branch members indicate otherwise by means of a locally organised ballot, no Left Unity member will be allowed to continue in any single elected position for more than two consecutive terms, without a break in between which is equivalent to at least one term.”

    I think this is an issue which crops up time and again throughout the constitution. If this truly is a grassroots movement then the constitution needs to be flexible enough to take into account that our members will not all share exactly the same views and nor should they.

    OUR DIVERSITY OF OPINION IS OUR GREATEST ASSET, WE NEED A CONSTITUION WHICH ENSHRINES A RESPECT FOR THAT DIVERSITY FROM START.

    Basically I think the ‘golden rule’ if you can call it that, is that as long as members and elected representatives are committed to a set of overall guiding principles (as opposed to any strict, rules which are set in stone) then the actions of local Branches and even elected representatives within those branches, should be entirely dependent on the needs and wishes of the local branch community they represent.

  42. I.Shovlin says:
    August 14, 2013 at 11:54 am

    14 b) i) AMENDMENT

    The part about elected representatives in full time positions not having other paid employment is absolutely essential.

    I agree that the salary should be no more than the national median wage. £28,537 by itself (with no expenses) may be insufficient for an MP from say Newcastle (where I am from) to be available to carry out all the duties expected from an MP, but as long as a reliable and wholly transparent expense system is in place to offset the costs of legitimate expenses, then £28,537 should be more than ok.

    Although admittedly (as with all job adverts) I think maybe you should include some kind of London living allowance for London based MPs (we have to face the reality that London is a lot more expensive and so may an additional cost of living allowance might be one solution). You would of course have to make sure London MPs reside totally in their constituency so as to avoid the whole second home loophole.

    14 b) i) PROPOSAL 1

    i) In cases where an elected position require the post is carried out on a full time basis, Left Unity members will only draw a maximum of the median national wage plus legitimate expenses (including a London Living Allowance for London based MPs

    To be honest though I think points like this about salary (as with many other issues that are being discussed) are not for the constitution or are far too rigid in their outlook. The constitution needs to be flexible and applicable at any point not just for the current situation and shouldn’t look to cover every aspect of a LY politicians duties (that should be left for the people they represent to decide and scrutinise.

    14 b) i) PROPOSAL 2

    ii) In cases where an elected position require the post to be carried out on a full time basis, Left Unity members, following open and direct consultation with branch members and constituents, will be required to draw an amount for a salary which is deemed both appropriate and applicable to the task at hand and which reflects a demonstrable commitment to the principles on which LU was founded.

  43. I.Shovlin says:
    August 14, 2013 at 11:56 am

    14 b) i)

    Why should the party get the surplus as well?? The MP will be representing all those in their constituency, including those who did not vote for them and who are not supporters of LU. Any surplus should instead be held in some kind of ‘ward fund’, whose use can be decided by ALL constituents near the end of that MPs term (award to a local business/individual, scholarship, local charity donation etc.)

    Or split the surplus, some amout to go to the ward as a whole (as above) and another proportion to go back to the local branch to fund campaigns/promotional literature etc?

    • John Penney says:
      August 17, 2013 at 8:18 pm

      You really don’t “geddit” do you I. Shovlin ! We don’t want to put MP’s (or Councillors) into Parliament so they can have a good time, and make a personal career of it. The LU MP or Councillor is backed by the local and national Party electoral machine so he/she will carry out the party manifesto and policies and tactics whilst holding office. The MP will damn well pay his/her surplus pay to the party which provided, and will continue to provide, the support services and political credibility to that MP while he/she does his job for the party (and his voting supporters too of course – but only as a delegate of the wider party).

      You really are stuck on an idealised bourgeois notion of the role of a parliamentary MP aren’t you ! A LU MP will be there to fight for socialism , for the constituency’s working class majority against austerity , NOT to fight for the rights of any rich people or Tories or fascists who might live in his/her constituency. Get real !

      • I.Shovlin says:
        August 18, 2013 at 7:17 pm

        Hi John,

        Thanks for the response. I wonder if you would be better forming the John ‘Penney Workers Party’ or the ‘Socialist Movement for John Penney’ because it is quite obvious (looking back through your posts) that you have very little time for anyone who expresses a view which is different to your own. I get that you see yourself as a radical socialist and that’s great if that’s your cup of tea, but this is not some kind of ‘Who is the most radical’ competition. Surely the whole point of LU is unite the different strands of socialism, not to simply impose one ideological interpretation at the expense of the rest.

        You speak as if the decision has already been taken re these constitutional issues and that they are no longer open for discussion, but worse still; you come across as if you and you alone, have some kind of nuanced understanding of socialism, that is beyond the grasp of most people. Now while I respect the fact that you are obviously committed to and have a good knowledge of socialist politics, I think it is incredibly presumptuous, not to mention arrogant for you to think that you have all the answers. 

        I have openly admitted that not everyone will agree with my opinion re grassroots/local-autonomy, however that is the point! I respect the fact that other people will have different views and will both want and need to approach things in a different way, a way which suits their own needs. Who am I to impose my views on any one else or any group of people.

        So for example if you and the branch you were a member of wanted to pursue a policy whereby an LU MP had to give all of the surplus back to the party then that’s fine, you could do that. But if another constituency Branch members wanted the surplus to go into some kind of Ward fund like I suggested, or wanted their MP to represent them for more then one term, who are you or LU to say otherwise? As long as the actions of the Branch/MP adheres to the guiding principles which LU espouses and seeks to serve the common good of the constituents they represent then what does it matter?

        I also disagree with what you say re who the LU MP is there to represent. Once elected they are not there only there to represent LU members they also need to protect the rights of those constituents who did not vote for them, as long as those rights or interests do not have a negative impact on the common good. That is basic democracy John not a idealised bourgeois notion. LU will need to protect all and represent all, but in a way which ensures mutual-respect, co-operation and supports the common good.

         I have said that I respect your opinion, even if I disagree with it because I think open and respectful discussion is an essential part of this process and the LU movement in general. I didn’t get involved with LU to get into some kind of slanging match and I don’t want to start here, it isn’t productive. By all means disagree with what I have said and offer constructive criticism but can you at least appreciate that I and others are as entitled to our view and input just as much as you are. Otherwise what is the point of this process?

        All the best,

        Ian

  44. I.Shovlin says:
    August 16, 2013 at 11:05 am

    6 b) ‘Branches will manage their affairs as they see fit, excepting that the conduct of the groups will be democratic and in accordance with the national rules, principles and policies of Left Unity.’

    AMENDMENT SUGGESTION – I think for this to be truly grassroots movement and one that genuinely takes into account the views of local constiutents/branch members, the sentence should end at rules and omit ‘policies of Left Unity’.

    As long as Branch conduct is in line with the overall principles of the party this should be sufficient.

    A similar discussion has already been had re political platforms, the same debate is applicable here. I think a more organic model for the party structure needs to be embraced, one that accepts there is never going to be a one size fits all policy for every community, group, region etc.

    The problem with MPs today is that they are unable to speak publically about their own opinion, or those of their consituents without fear of ‘going against the party line’. I personally have more respect for an MP who shows the intelligence and fortitude to express their own opinion rather than mindlessly following a pre-approved party soundbite, even if I disagree with what those views are!

    I think LU Branches/MPs should have the freedom to both personal character/conviction and also, where necessary, speak against a central LU policy, if those they are meant to represent also feel strongly against it. There is no need for a Branch/MP to throw the baby out with the bathwater so to speak and disassociate themselves from LU entirely, simply because they do not agree with every single LU policy (again, accepting our diversity of opinion and that we have the maturity to agree to differ on certain things is essential).

    At the end of the day if a branch/MP did or said something which was against the guiding principles of LU then LU supporters won’t vote for them, but someone could be against a particular LU policy but still agree with overall aims of the movement.

    • John Penney says:
      August 17, 2013 at 8:05 pm

      What an absolutely dreadful proposal, I Shovlin ! To allow possible future LU MP’s (or local government councillors) freedom to “do their own thing” in ANY way is a recipe for the shambles the Green Party finds itself in in Brighton ! With Green Councillors taking it upon themselves to administer Austerity, bring in scab labour to force through wage cuts – all because the Brighton councillors “think it appropriate to do so”.

      LU MP’s and councillors in contrast have to see themselves as privileged “mandated delegates” of LU – there to carry out party policy TO THE LETTER. Not “superstar” politicos , quickly forgetting who they owe their candidacy and canvassing support to , ie The Party, and its election manifesto.

      A party based on such localist semi autonomy , as you suggest, is a surefire recipe for opportunism and the rapid collapse of any credibility we might have earned as a principled party determined to fight Austerity in a coherent nationwide organised way.

  45. I.Shovlin says:
    August 18, 2013 at 7:18 pm

    Hi John,

    As I’ve outlined above I don’t want to get into some kind of unnecessary argument with you, although I am more then happy to engage in a civil discussion?

    I disagree, I think the reason local devolved autonomy hasn’t really worked in the past is because the structures are not in place to make the MP sufficiently accountable to the people. I  fully agree with you that MPs need to see their role as being a privilege and a great honour, but I do not see them as mandated delegates of LU. First and foremost they are mandated representatives of the people.

    I agree I wouldn’t want MPs to become “superstar” politicos , however they should not put the party ahead of the people, that is part of the problem now. MPs owe their candidacy and support to the parties that put them forward and once in power end up towing the party line without considering the views of their constituents. Look at Labour now, their MPs ignore the wishes of their constituents at every turn for fear of reprisal from the party whips.

    I think we can be genuinely radical by taking a completely out-of-the-box approach to the idea of a political party. LU could be less a party in the traditional sense and more an organic framework, one based around guiding socialist principles but which does not seek to impose its will in a top-down/centralised approach? 

    Again though, I appreciate that you an others may be wary about adopting such a structure.

    All the best,

    Cheers, Ian

    • Guy H says:
      August 21, 2013 at 1:33 pm

      Hi Ian, on the contrary I would suggest that by empowering our MPs with autonomy this would enforce a top-down approach as opposed to a grassroots one. It is only by the limitation of careerist tendencies through a constitution and through pressure from below that we will ensure democracy. Of course representatives should have a focus on local issues but MPs would be national representatives of all those in the party as well as local ones.

      • Ian says:
        August 22, 2013 at 10:03 am

        Hi Guy/John,

        I agree that if you were to empower MPs and give them the freedom to do what they want (without their being adequate structures in place to ensure they are representing the actual constituents needs) then yes this would be no better than the current state of affairs. But if one of the guiding principles of LU is to ensure a grassroots-led democratic process, then any LU MP would have to adhere to that principle and so always take into account that when making any decision it has to be one which is representative of those who have voted them in.

        The point I was trying to make really was not that LU MPs would be left entirely to their own devices, without needing to give any consideration for the party; but rather that any constituion will permit open discussion and minority opinion within its own ranks (but not if those actions threaten the stability/overall aims of the party). I just want to make sure the constitution does not hamper or prevent the constructive benefits which often come with plurality of opinion.

        Amitttedly myself and John P seem to have got off on a slightly wrong foot (apologies for my part in that John P, at least we can both agree on the fact that the status quo isn’t working) but I’m sure both he and you can appreciate that I am just concerned about creating a rigidly defined consitution that could eventually lead to another batch of ‘political zombies’ like we have now; who are so worried about the party-line that they cannot give a straight answer or show any personal creativity or imagination.

        If some kind of compromise at least can be reached to alleviate those fears then I would certainly feel happier.

        All the best,

        Cheers, Ian

  46. Lee Rock says:
    August 21, 2013 at 7:35 pm

    Hi All

    Does anyone know if the convenors of this strand are still involved?

    I remain concerned that we are making points that need to be decided upon for a next draft and the convenors have no proposals/timescale for the way forward.

    Fraternally

    Lee

    • Richard Murgatroyd says:
      August 21, 2013 at 11:10 pm

      Hi Lee and all

      Apologies for the protracted period of silence – just got back from holiday and been really busy with work, family etc

      Rest assured that we are working on incorporating the points/comments to this draft and you will appreciate this is detailed and time consuming work. The devil is in the detail. We are also looking at the process of consultation/timescales up to the September and November conferences to ensure maximum chances for participation/amendment by branches. Obviously this is something we have to get right and involves liaising with others and that can cause delays.

      That said so far we are safely on target and set fair to fulfil our remit of being able to present a draft constitution for consideration and amendment by supporters and branches in good time for the November conference.

      A post on these and the next draft will be posted asap – hopefully no more than a week.

      All the best

      Richard

  47. eudaimonia says:
    August 24, 2013 at 3:05 am

    Please check out the Data Protection Act on the Information Commissioners Office website.
    http://www.ico.org.uk

    I think this needs to be read so details on membership types, local & national mailings, Transparency commitments etc are actually legal before anything is voted on. It would be crap if people travel from across UK to make decisions only to find later they’re void.
    I think ICO have downloads specifically for political parties. I’m pretty sure LU will need a DP Policy and most likely need to register this due to the amount of people involved and also the reliance on online communication and transparency.
    Also if branches operate differently to national LU, they might need to have a separate DP policy.

    Cheers

    • Richard Murgatroyd says:
      August 24, 2013 at 11:41 am

      Thanks Eudaimomia, this is really important and no one has raised this before.

      To be honest I wouldn’t know where to start with this.

      Can I appeal to you, and anyone else with knowledge of this area to suggest specific rules or amendments to the rules?

      A new draft 4 should be forthcoming shortly and it might be good maybe to look at that before making specific suggestions.

      Remember the data protection guidelines and protocol could be in the form of an Appendix which would make it easier to draft.

      All the best

      Richard
      (Co-convenor)

      • SeanT says:
        August 24, 2013 at 3:42 pm

        While the DPA and its ramifications on the operations of a political party are indeed important issues which the new party will have to be up to speed on, I don’t think that the particular detailed procedures need to be covered by the constitution, any more than procedures responding to the requirements on us under various other bits of legislation need be, with the possible exception of making clear which elected post holder will be designated our Data Protection Officer.

        The Constitution is a high level document rather than a detailed operating manual. We will certainly have to be drafting procedures for all sorts of committees and internal party processes over the coming year; the only constitutional requirement should be to make it clear that all such procedures, standing order and so on, must all be subject to approval by National Conference.

  48. eudaimonia says:
    August 25, 2013 at 2:59 pm

    Fine! I’m entirely happy you “chaps” on the Internal Democracy and Constitution Commission can prepare a draft with /without reference to the Electoral Commission, the Data Protection Act 1998 or the Political Parties Act 2000!! What on earth was I thinking….? :D :D

    • Richard Murgatroyd says:
      August 27, 2013 at 12:46 pm

      Sorry Sean I think you are wrong about this and eudaimonia is right. I’d like to repeat my plea for some specialist input from either yourself eudaimonia or anyone else with expertise in DPA etc.

      Thanks

      Richard

      (co-convenor)

  49. Mike Scott says:
    August 28, 2013 at 6:23 pm

    Having made various suggestions in the past, I think I’m now getting to the “brain hurts” stage and need a holiday! However, before doing so, can i suggest a couple of additions:

    1. In common with various people above, i don’t think it’s a good idea to leave branches to their own devices, as this will inevitably lead – in some cases – to local dictatorships with no accountability to members. There needs to be a basic structure of officers, elections, etc laid down for everyone in order to prevent this. This also need s to include mention of how local funds are to be spent and some sort of auditing process. I know this sounds bureaucratic, but it is necessary.
    2. We will need to have Disciplinary/Grievance/Complaints Procedures. These don’t have to be in the Constitution, but quite often are – if they aren’t going to be, a quick decision needs taking about where they are going to sit, as you can be quite sure we’ll need them sooner than we think!

    Cheers, Mike

    • Richard Murgatroyd says:
      August 29, 2013 at 3:06 pm

      Hi Mike

      Yes you are right on both counts. Your comments and suggestions have been really valuable and have had quite an impact on the rules so please don’t give up yet, however much your brain hurts!!!

      Have you any ideas on draft wording regarding these two points – preferably to Working Draft 4, which has gone some of the way you suggest on branches. With any luck on the technology this will be posted asap…?

      All the best

      Richard

  50. Larry says:
    August 31, 2013 at 2:19 pm

    12 National Collective Council.

    12.e

    Cumbria, alone, covers a large geographical area, and is economically and socially diverse. This applies to Northumberland as well. No matter how the geographic limits of the “northeast “and “northwest” are defined, 2 Representatives is woefully inadequate.

    Why is it proposed that London, alone, should have 2 Repsresentatives?

    Are the “Northwest” and “Northeast” continuing to be assigned the role of the “poor cousins” in our new democracy?? What’s up with that? We are just continuing the same pattern of undemocratic elitist behaviour that has alienated the north of England from the South, and “The City”, for hundreds of years. This has to change!!

    h) Health and Welfare should be represented together with Education kept seperate. Even Andy Burnham has recognized how unmanageable it becomes, when we lump all 3 together. Education and Social Welfare aren’t even related, (outside of the fact that kids are the predominant service users in both portfolios). It ain’t gonna work, folks!

    One other thing. I have been attempting, for over 2 weeks, to have a question addressed by Left Unity, with no success.

    Who and why was London chosen to host the Founding Convention in November? The geographic centre of the country, is around the Lakes District in Cumbria. Has anyone ever considered looking at a map? Pampered and spoiled London gets the “gravy” again, eh? This has to change. It’s not democratic! There are life forms existing outside of the rarified air of “The City”, and the “Home Counties”.

    Is any of this registering??

    Coming to you from the “Great Pale” of Cumbria.

    Larry

    • Richard Murgatroyd says:
      September 6, 2013 at 9:27 am

      Hi Larry

      Please have a look at the revised Working Draft 4 constitution and post on that as that is the most up to date draft. The danger is that if you post of earlier drafts your comments will be read as widely by some contributors who are assuming we have moved on.

      The issue of regional representation boils down to this:

      Option 1 – assign number of reps without reference to the number of members in a particular region to ensure a wide geographical spread

      Option 2 – assign number of reps proportional to to the number of members in each region.

      Working draft 3 went for option 1, working draft 4 has, following the debate, attempted to incorporate option 2.

      It is still all up for discussion though and there are arguments on both sides

      Re: siting of conference as a northerner myself I agree with you that we have to spread out national meetings – this is actually written into the draft constitution by the way. But given the train and road system I think its probably sensible to go for London in November.

      Best

      Richard Murgatroyd

      Co-convenor


Left Unity is active in movements and campaigns across the left, working to create an alternative to the main political parties.

About Left Unity   Read our manifesto

Left Unity is a member of the European Left Party.

Read the European Left Manifesto  

ACTIVIST CALENDAR

Events and protests from around the movement, and local Left Unity meetings.

Saturday 30th November: National March for Palestine

End the Genocide – Stop Arming Israel

Hands Off Lebanon – Don’t Attack Iran

Assemble 12 noon – central London

More details here

More events »

GET UPDATES

Sign up to the Left Unity email newsletter.

CAMPAIGNING MATERIALS

Get the latest Left Unity resources.

Leaflet: Support the Strikes! Defy the anti-union laws!

Leaflet: Migration Truth Kit

Broadsheet: Make The Rich Pay

More resources »

Left Unity, 5 Caledonian Road, London N1 9DX. Privacy Policy