Welcome back to the policy commission on internal democracy – Strands 2 and 3

Please find below some draft proposals for this strand on:

Strands 2 and 3 – Structures and leadership

What organisational structure should operate at-

– local group level

– English regional/Welsh/Scottish/Northern Irish

– national leadership level?

What would we call these various tiers and how should people who sit on them be chosen?

If we have a national leadership body:

– What should it be called?

– Should we have individual leaders or a collective leadership?

– Do we choose spokespeople to represent us on specific areas and if so how?

– how do we ensure they are accountable and unhealthy concentrations of power are avoided?

– should we have fixed terms to hold office/rotation of positions?

– should there be some form or proportionality so that different political strands of opinion are represented

Everything is up for discussion and if you wish to make amendments please suggest alternative wording clearly identifying the relevant section that you wish to change/delete.

Hope this is helpful as a starting point.

All the best

Richard Murgatroyd and James Youd

Co-convenors

 

 

4) Structure

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 executive positions limited to a maximum of 5 years in any 10 year period. A right of recall will also apply
  5. Meetings to be chaired in rotation
  6. At least 50% of those elected to national committees will be women
  7. If groups of members wish to organise sections or caucuses based on identity or as a political faction to better develop policies, ideas and campaigns that reflect their needs or ideas they have the right to do so but the members of these sections/groups/caucuses will have no special privileges, or a greater voice than any other. All members are equal and no individual member, or section/group of members will have greater voting rights or decision making powers than any other. The principle of One Member One Vote will consistently apply
  8. LU recognises that it is important to avoid having more national meetings than necessary as this can discourage participation of ordinary people whose 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’.

 

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

|

Local groups

|

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, Conference Arrangements Committee and any others that the National conference deems necessary)

I

National Collective Council

 

c) Individual members

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

  1. as a member of a local group 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 Local Group 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 (see f vii and h IV b below).

 

d) Local groups

  1. Local groups bring together members and supporters of Left Unity, ideally along constituency and ward lines. Decisions to split or merge local groups will be made by the groups themselves
  2. Local groups 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 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. Local groups may elect representatives to regional bodies and nominate candidates for any of the elected national committees

 

e) Regional and nations-within-UK structures

  1. Committees will be created for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, comprised of elected representatives of the local groups to better deal with issues specific to these areas
  2. In England, regional committees of representatives from local groups will be organised for all the regions identified in g. V below.
  3. The role of regional and sub-national committees will be to coordinate work between local groups as they see fit and hold regional representatives on the NCC to account

 

f) 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
  2. More than one National Conference can occur each year (but note 4 (a) viii above)
  3. The National Collective Council may call special national conferences if 2/3rds of those present desire
  4. If 25 % of local groups pass a resolution calling for a special conference the NMC will organise it as quickly as practically possible, or by petition of 25 % of members
  5. All members can attend and vote at National Conferences on the basis of One Member One Vote (OMOV). However, when Left Unity reaches 10,000 paid members the national committees will draw up proposals to move towards a delegate structure of decision making
  6. The National Committees, Local branches and Regional/Sub-National bodies have the right to propose motions that if passed by the National Conference will become policy.
  7. 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
  8. National conferences will be organised by a directly elected Conference Arrangements Committee which will seek to encourage open access and streamline business through compositing similar motions as far as possible and drawing up Standing Orders
  9. 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

 

g) National committees with specialist roles

  1. All members of specialist national committees will be nominated by local groups and directly elected by the members meeting in the National Conference

 

  1. 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

 

h) 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 41 individual representatives elected as representatives on a regional/sub-national 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 local groups within that region. Nominations for individual post-holders to be made by local groups, 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. Voting in elections for regional representatives will be conducted nationally through the Single Transferable Vote (STV) 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

 

  1. Regional representation will be one male and one female rep from the following regions (as defined by the division into constituencies for elections to the European Parliament):

 

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)

Northern Ireland (2)

The following posts with national responsibility will also be annually elected and 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

Male and female Policy Principal Speakers with shared responsibility for:

Economy

Environment and transport

Equality

Health, education and welfare

Peace and international affairs

The National Collective Council shall meet at least 6 times a year and 80% of members must be present to form a quorum. Chairing to be rotational.

i) Accountability

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

  1. Any candidate for election to the NCC or as a national officer/principal speakers will be nominated by a local group and provide a written statement of 500 words stating which political organisations other than Left Unity they belong to and the policies they hope to promote, so that members can make informed decisions
  2. 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
  3. All minutes of national committees and working groups will be published within a week
  4. 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
  5. 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
15 July 2013

88 comments

88 responses to “Welcome back to the policy commission on internal democracy – Strands 2 and 3”

  1. John Penney says:
    July 15, 2013 at 8:22 pm

    In 4) STRUCTURE, d) Local groups, para ii

    insert ” principles and policies and tactics” after “in accordance with the national rules…”, for the amended paragraph to now read:

    “ii.Local groups 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 tactics, 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”

    My reason for this addition is to establish the vital principle that Left Unity must be not only a democratic party, internally and externally, but also a reasonably coherent and disciplined one – with the same political principles adhered to nationwide. If for instance Left Unity ever held the balance of power in a local council there must be no question that Left Unity councillors had any leeway to depart from an unconditional “No Cuts” principle, because of claimed “local circumstances” . Down that “localist decision making ” route lies disaster – Green Party Brighton-style.

  2. johnkeeley says:
    July 16, 2013 at 7:39 am

    Impressed with 4. a. iv.

    “…with terms of office for executive positions limited to a maximum of 5 years in any 10 year period. A right of recall will also apply ”

    I would have liked to have seen e-democracy to be really e-democracy, as in giving members the ability to a say in decisions by polling rather than delegates at national gatherings the making decisions.

    I don’t think LU have really grasped the opportunity to create something new & fresh based upon participatory democracy.
    Still the old-fashioned approach to politics.

    • Richard Murgatroyd says:
      July 16, 2013 at 4:16 pm

      I agree John K about the need for participatory democracy – can you come up with a wording for a possible amendment. How about something along the lines of ‘if a certain % of members or local request it the NCC should organise a poll…?’ This trigger could take the form of an internal e-petition?

      Being a non-techie I don’t know how possible all this would be in practice..?

      Best
      Richard

      • John Penney says:
        July 18, 2013 at 10:32 am

        I think the possibilities of introducing innovative elements of direct , all member “e-democracy” in LU are too important to discount because of a claim that this would “disenfranchise” poorer members of LU. This simply doesn’t stack up – because EVERYONE can get free time on their local library’s computers in order to participate. “Technophobia” or lack of computer expertise could be a barrier to participation – but, again, most local libraries will assist new users to acquire very basic internet accessing skills.

        Using the internet to give LU members access to direct participation in debates and polls on policy is always going to be more inclusive than expecting people to travel to regular party conferences as the only way to cast a vote. Establishing “e-democratic” processes in LU would involve each subs paying full member having a unique signing-in password – but if the Urban75 discussion forum , and loads of other sites, can set such a system up, so could we.

        Once an “e-democracy” element in LU decision making was agreed the constitution could easily include a proviso whereby if , say, 25% of the membership voted (online again ) for a specific policy to be discussed and voted on, using E-voting, that vote would be as equally binding as national conference decisions. Seems much closer to the ideal of “direct democracy” than any , inevitably delegate-based, decision making process operated so far by political parties in the pre-internet era .

        This innovation would also tackle some of the problems intrinsic in all previous broad Left parties, in which the minority views of well organised highly experienced political factions are usually overrepresented at conferences – partly due to their shouty “point of order” attention grabbing techniques .

    • John Penney says:
      July 16, 2013 at 4:55 pm

      I agree with you JohnKeeley that this first draft hasn’t fully grasped the opportunity to use the internet to give subs paying LU members the opportunity to vote directly on issues on a regular basis WITHOUT having to attend very expensive and time – consuming conferences. You could suggest an amendment to capture this possibility ?

      I’ll have a go to start:

      amend f) ii) on the National Conference . Add to current statement: ie,

      “More than one National Conference can occur each year (but note 4 (a) viii above)”

      the following amendment :

      “Including ,when requested by 25% of local groups, LU website – based Virtual Special Conferences around specific issues, with online debate and binding voting, restricted via password protection to subs-paying LU members “.

      Hows about that ?

  3. SeanT says:
    July 16, 2013 at 2:56 pm

    Constitution Strands 2 &3

    First of all, I think that it’s worth making the point that constitutional arrangements, no matter how well intentioned and carefully drafted, cannot in themselves ensure that an organisation operates in an effective and healthy way. However, as the SWP are currently demonstrating, bad constitutional arrangements can contribute significantly to an organisation having an unhealthy internal regime.

    Richard deserves our thanks for breaking the ground by producing an initial draft of these sections of the constitution – it is much easier to respond to suggestions than start out oneself with a blank page.

    However, I have multiple problems with these proposals. In general, I think it is vital that in establishing the most rigorously democratic structures possible for our organisation we do not succumb to the tyranny of structurelessness. As someone who has had to put up with inefficiency and sanctimonious voluntarism of the Green Party’s constitution for seven years (and, like James, someone who is a former member of its Standing Orders Committee) this draft is much too much like the Green Party constitution for my liking.

    In particular, it reproduces the Greens’ fundamentally undemocratic practice of having national conferences open to whoever has the time and money to turn up rather than elected representatives who are accountable to those who send them. It also doesn’t deal with some important areas (for example, there is no facility as far as I can see for the establishment of self organised groups of oppressed people, such as women, gays, ethnic minorities and disabled people, nor any facility for them to be represented at regional or national levels).

    I was surprised to read the proposal that the party would be regionally organised in Scotland, Wales and the North of Ireland. I don’t believe that any such decision should be taken in the case of Scotland and Wales without (a) consultation with those comrades who have signed up in those nations and (b) consultation and negotiation with existing left organisations active there. In the case of Scotland, I would have thought that we would probably wish to co-operate closely with the Scottish Socialist Party and as a result would recommend to our members/supporters in Scotland that they should have joint membership with the SSP. The role of Plaid Cymru in Wales is rather more complicated and contradictory than that of the SSP in Scotland (although it is a much more significant organisation in its home territory) but I would have thought that we should consult with our Welsh comrades and the left forces within Plaid – which include the party leader, Leanne Wood, of course – before any decision on how to operate in Wales is taken.

    As for the North of Ireland; I was gob smacked by the suggestion that we – a British (and largely English) political grouping – should operate there. It is not just another nation, it is a gerrymandered statelet cynically created by the British State. We should obviously build working relationships with the left forces in the North of Ireland but we should no more consider operating as a party in the six counties than we would think of setting ourselves up across the border in the twenty six counties.

    Rather than go through the draft line by line though, I think it would be clearer for everyone (and easier for me) to present a complete alternative draft. I’m not only a great believer in recycling things that work reasonably well, I quite like to brush them up a bit, paint the wheels and claim credit for their creation. In this case though, I can’t claim to have worked up a model constitution entirely in my head. I think that the SSP’s constitution, though not perfect and not wholly transportable south, is not a bad place to start and the following draft is loosely based on it, as well as nicking bits from Richard’s draft. Of course, the recent history of the SSP is a salutary lesson that no matter how good your constitution, it won’t guarantee that you won’t cock everything up.

    Having previously suggested that in the section of the constitution dealing with membership we should allow for the possibility of trade union affiliation, I have included in this draft mechanisms for how affiliated members might be represented at regional councils and national conferences. I have also assumed that we will wish to establish youth and student sections of the party in due course and have included mechanisms for their representation as well (looking back to the dear dead days of my youth I have, for convenience given the youth section the name [Young Socialists]. Obviously, the names within square brackets in the draft are working titles only and have no other status.

    Alternative draft

    4 Organisational principles

    4.1 The structure of [Left Unity/the Left Party] is based on the following principles:
    Decision making flows from the grass-roots upwards according to easily understood and democratic processes
    Regional and national committees, individual office holders and elected representatives are accountable to the membership; their duty is to carry out the expressed wishes of the membership
    Transparency – all minutes and reports of meetings and decisions of regional and national committees or structures will be published and made available to members
    All [Left Unity/Left Party] bodies have the right to recall the elected officers and spokespersons accountable to them and the terms of office for any office holder limited to a maximum of 5 years in any 10 year period.
    [Left Unity/The Left Party] aims for gender equality in all regional and national bodies. At least 50% of those elected to regional and national committees should be women.
    All members are equal and no individual member, or section/group of members will have greater voting rights or decision making powers than any other. The principle of One Member One Vote will be universally applied.

    4.2 (a) We seek to build a broad, pluralist and inclusive party. It is important that all members and affiliates participate within the party in this positive manner.

    (b) Members are encouraged to recognise that different opinions are valued and diversity and dissent is positive.

    (c) We strive for an internal atmosphere of openness, tolerance and respect where everyone is encouraged to fully participate at all levels.

    (d) We are opposed to racism, sexism, sectarianism, homophobia and all forms of discrimination. Members should reflect this in their language and behaviour.

    5 Branches

    5.1 Branches are organised on geographical areas, generally based on electoral boundaries. Branch members in liaison with their Regional Council can agree to subdivide their branch to create new branches. Regional Councils have overall responsibility for the creation of new branches, branch amalgamations etc.

    5.2 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.

    5.3 Branches should aim to meet fortnightly but meet at least monthly and aim to organise activities (e.g. further meetings, stalls, leafleting etc.) at least on a fortnightly basis.

    5.4 (a) Branches will organise an Annual General Meeting (AGM) at which a Chairperson, a Secretary/organiser, a Membership Secretary, a Treasurer and any other positions agreed by the branch to be necessary shall be elected. Branch delegates to Regional Council and National Council and any other appropriate delegations shall also be elected at the AGM.

    (b) Vacant positions, or positions created to meet a newly-identified need, may be filled by election at an ordinary branch meeting if members have been given proper notice.

    5.5 Members should be informed of all branch meetings and activities. Members should receive at least two weeks notice of the branch AGM, candidate selection meetings and any other branch meetings at which elections are to take place (such as the selection of the National Conference delegation).

    6 Regional Bodies

    6.1(a) [Left Unity/The Left Party] will organise in nine regions: North East, North West, Yorkshire and Humber, East Midlands, West Midlands, Eastern, South East, South West and London.

    (b) In Scotland and Wales, [Left Unity/Left Party] members will work in, or in partnership with, left organisations in those countries with which the party has fraternal relations.

    6.2 (a) In each region a Regional Council will be responsible for co-ordinating and prioritising campaigning and organisational activities, for assisting in the creation and building of branches and for encouraging political education.

    (b) Regional Councils will aim to meet at least bimonthly.

    (c) Regional Councils will consist of two delegates from each branch, one delegate from each
    regional Network, delegates from regional affiliates and the regional officers. All members of the party are entitled to attend Regional Council meetings as observers.

    (d) Union branches, Trades Union Councils and stewards committees can affiliate to the appropriate Regional Council, currently based on the 9 English regions. Each union affiliate would be entitled to 2 delegates – who must be individual party members – to the appropriate Regional Council(s). This would be based on the location of the workplace(s) organised in that union body, with the right of union branches which organise in workplaces situated in more than one Region to send 2 delegates to each of the Regional Councils covering such workplaces. Each delegate would have one vote at each Regional Council. No individual union delegate could be delegated to more than oneRegional Council.

    (e) Trade Union organisations can also affiliate at this level.

    (f) Branches, regional networks, regional affiliates, and regional officers have the right to submit motions to Regional Council.

    (f) Regional Council minutes and minutes of other regional meetings should be forwarded to the branches/affiliates in the region and the national Executive Committee for information.

    6.3 (a) A regional AGM shall take place at which all members of the region shall be entitled to participate and vote.
    (b) The regional AGM will elect a regional chairperson, secretary, treasurer and any other regional officers agreed by the Regional Council or regional aggregate to be necessary. Candidates for election at the regional AGM will require the nomination of one branch from the region.

    (c) The regional officers will provide a written report to the regional AGM on their activities over the previous year and their plans for the future.

    6.4 In addition to the regional AGM, the Regional Council may agree to call an aggregate meeting of all members within the region at any time in order to involve the whole membership in the discussion of an important issue.

    6.5 Regional Councils/regional aggregates can elect sub committees as necessary to develop campaign and political education proposals and to organise events. Sub committees do not have to consist of delegates to the Regional Council, but are accountable to the Regional Council and regional aggregate.

    6.6 (a) Regional AGMs should elect local government committees to cover council areas where [Left Unity/Left Party] councillors are elected in order to co-ordinate the party’s activities in relation to the council. Local government committees should consist of the party’s councillors, at least two representatives of the Regional Council, and one representative of each branch in the area covered by the council.

    (b) Each local government committee is accountable to the Regional Council and regional aggregate, which may endorse, amend or reject its proposals. Local government committees should circulate regular reports on their activities and proposals.

    7 National Council

    7.1 National Council is responsible for implementing party policy between conferences and monitoring the work of the Executive Committee, standing committees and sub committees/working parties. It is the body that takes stock, learns lessons and readjusts strategy where necessary between conferences as well as implementing policy agreed at conference.

    7.2 (a) National Council will consist of the Executive Committee, branch delegates, national network delegates, one [Young Socialists] delegate, one delegate from the party’s student groups, and (when applicable) national affiliate delegates. National Council will aim to meet at least every two months.

    (b) Branches should elect a minimum of two delegates per branch (for the first 40 members, and then an additional delegate for each additional 20, or part of 20).

    (c) Unions at national level can affiliate to [Left Unity/The Left Party] nationally, with each national union entitled to 1 delegate per 1,000 union members or part thereof to the National Council – all delegates must be individual party members (national conference/national council can review the size of union delegations as the number of affiliations grows). The union would determine how best to democratically elect such delegates. Each delegate would have one vote at the National Council.

    Branches and affiliates should seek a gender balance in their delegations. Branches should ensure that at
    least one member of a delegation of two is a women and that larger delegations consist of at most one more man than a women, e.g. a delegation of three should include at least one women, but a delegation of four should include at least two women.

    (e) All national Networks have the right to send one delegate to National Council.

    (f) All registered platforms/tendencies have the right to send observers to the National Council.

    (g) All national office bearers and national spokespersons who are not delegates to National Council are encouraged to attend and participate as observers.

    7.3 Branches, national networks, national affiliates, the national structures of the [Young Socialists] and the party’s student groups, and the Executive Committee have the right to send motions and amendments to National Council.

    7.4 The National Council can elect sub committees/working parties as necessary to look in detail at specific areas of policy development, to develop campaign proposals and to organise events. Sub committees/working parties do not have to consist of delegates to National Council, but are accountable to National Council. Sub committees/working parties should report to the Executive Committee and National Council. The minutes of sub-committee and working group meetings should be forwarded to the national Executive Committee and National Council for information.

    7.5 The National Council has the right to call a Special Conference if it considers this to be necessary. A Special Conference can also be called by a signed requisition of 20% of the members.

    7.6 The National Council should attempt to meet at least every four months. The National Council should circulate minutes of its meetings to branches. All members of the party are entitled to attend National Council meetings as observers.

    8 Executive Committee

    8.1 The Executive Committee provides political and strategic leadership and is responsible for the day to day running of the party. The Executive Committee is accountable for all its actions to National Council and National Conference.

    8.2 (a) The Executive Committee consists of the National Secretary, National Co-Chairs, National Treasurer, National Trade Union Co-ordinator and 10 members directly elected at National Conference.

    (b) To ensure gender balance for the directly elected positions National Conference will elect five women by STV and five men by STV.

    (c) If no member of the Executive Committee is a member of a branch in one of the party’s nine regions, the candidate from that region with the highest number of votes in the election for directly-elected places will serve as a member of the Executive Committee.

    (d) The Minutes Secretary and the Press and Publicity Co-ordinator shall attend Executive Committee meetings ex officio. The relevant office bearers, spokespersons and committee members should be entitled to observe and take part in discussions of the Executive Committee related to their field of responsibility. All members of the party are entitled to attend Executive Committee meetings as observers.

    8.3 (a) The National Secretary and National Co-Chairs in liaison with the Executive Committee will draw up the agenda for each National Council meeting.

    (b) The Executive Committee should refer all major decisions to National Council. This does not preclude the Executive Committee reaching interim decisions on urgent matters and seeking the ratification of National Council at the earliest opportunity.

    (c) Minutes of Executive Committee meetings should be tabled at National Council meetings.

    8.4 The Executive Committee should meet at least monthly. The Executive Committee should circulate minutes of its meetings to branches.

    8.5 The Executive Committee should oversee expense payments and wages to members who are regular volunteers and staff.

    8.6 All heritable and moveable property of Left Unity/The Left Party] shall be vested in Trustees so authorised by the Executive Committee (“the Trustees”) representing and acting for the whole of the members of Left Unity/The Left Party]. No personal liability shall attach to any Trustee except to the extent of such funds of the party as may be actually received by him.

    8.7 The Executive Committee shall have power to authorise the Trustees and the Trustees, when so authorised, may (1) hold, purchase or take on lease any land or buildings, sell, exchange, borrow on the security of, lease or build upon the land and alter and pull down buildings and again rebuild; and (2) grant security over the heritable property of Left Unity/The Left Party] and obtain advances of money for the purposes of Left Unity/The Left Party] and upon such terms as to interest and repayment of principal as the Committee may determine;

    9 National Conference

    9.1 National Conference is the sovereign body of [Left Unity/The Left Party]. National Conference should take place within 13 months of the previous annual conference. Between times, however, the elected National Council should conduct the party’s affairs with the elected Executive Committee and nine elected Regional Councils supporting it.

    9.2 (a) National policy will be democratically decided by a National Conference. [Left Unity/The Left Party] conferences are organised on a delegate basis from branches with one delegate for every five branch members or part thereof, to be elected by branch consensus, or, in the event of a contest, by single transferable vote. Branches are not entitled to mandate delegates to National Conference.

    (b) Branches are encouraged to seek gender balance in their delegations. Women should make up at least one-third of a branch’s delegation.

    (c) Branches are expected to ensure that their conference delegates are up-to-date with their membership subscriptions.

    (d) Branches should provide a full list of members to the Membership Secretary/National Secretary as soon as possible after a conference has been called and certainly no later than the deadline for motions.

    (e) National unions would be entitled to 1 delegate per 1,000 union members or part thereof to National Conference – all delegates must be individual party members. The union would determine how best to democratically elect such delegates. Each delegate would have one vote at national conference.

    (f) Union branches, Trades Union Councils and stewards committees would be entitled to 2 elected delegates – who must be individual party members – to National Conference. The union would determine how best to democratically elect such delegates. Each delegate would have one vote.

    (g) Party members are also welcome to attend National Conference as visitors. Party visitors can participate in debates (including to move a branch, network or platform/tendency motion) but they will not have voting rights.

    (h) Non party visitors to National Conference cannot routinely participate in debates.

    9.3 (a) Party branches, national trade union affiliates, union branches, Trades Union Councils and stewards committees can all send 2 motions and 2 amendments to national conference.

    (b) The Executive Committee has the right to send motions to National Conference in order to initiate debates on areas of key strategic and political importance.

    (c) National Council may submit the proposals of sub committees, working parties or standing committees, as amended by National Council, to National Conference in the form of motions.

    (d) Sub committees or working parties established by conference motion may be charged to submit proposals directly to National Conference.

    (e) National Networks, have the right to send one motion and one amendment to National Conference.

    (f) The national structures of the [Young Socialists] and party’s student groups each have the right to submit one motion and one amendment to National Conference.

    (g) A platform/tendency whose platform is registered with the National Council has the right to send one motion and one amendment to National Conference in its own name signed by 10 members of [Left Unity/the Left Party].

    9.4 Each national office bearers and spokespersons is expected to submit a written report to National Conference on their activities (including the implementation of any relevant decisions made by the preceding conference), and on developments over the previous year in their field of responsibility. Reports should not seek to develop new policy and will not be voted on by conference. Branches may submit questions about any aspect of the reports.

    9.5 If a motion or amendment seeking to amend, delete or add to any part of the Aims & Principles section of the constitution is agreed by conference by less than two-thirds of votes cast, a full debate on the motion/amendment will take place throughout the party. A debate and a vote will take place on the motion/amendment at the next National Conference (or at a Special Conference) at which a simple majority of votes cast will be required to ratify the motion/amendment.

    9.6 Branches/Regional Councils have the right to determine local/regional policy on local/regional matters within the framework of national policy agreed by National Conference and National Council.

    10. Office Bearers and Spokespersons

    10.1 National Conference will elect all national office bearers. Office bearers will be responsible for processing the decisions of National/Special Conferences and National Council. Office bearers will be as follows:
    • National Secretary; responsible for preparation of agendas, dealing with external correspondence & communications, liaising with regional councils, reporting to the Executive Committee and the National Council on progress etc.;
    Two National Co-Chairs (one man and one woman); responsible for presiding over Executive Committee Meetings, National Council meetings, conferences etc.,liaising with Secretary over agendas for meetings etc., acting as national spokespersons for [Left Unity/the Left Party]. For the technical purpose of registration with the Electoral Commission only, one of the National Co-Chairs (chosen by the toss of a coin) will be designated party leader;
    National Treasurer; responsible for keeping details of party income and expenditure, preparation of
    quarterly financial reports to be sent to all Branch Secretaries, and presentation of audited accounts to National Conference, fundraising etc.;
    Registration Officer/Elections Co-ordinator;
    • Three Assistant National Secretaries (one for Minutes, one for Membership records and one for maintaining the Website);
    • National Press & Policy Co-ordinator;
    • National Trade Union Co-ordinator;
    • International Co-ordinator;
    • Student Co-ordinator (elected by Student Conference – see 14.2 (b)) ;
    • Youth Co-ordinator (elected by [Young Socialists] Conference – see 14.1 (b)) ;
    • Two Auditors – to, in cooperation with National Treasurer, audit national accounts for presentation at National Conference. Auditor cannot be a member of the executive or
    finance committee.

    10.2 The National Conference/Council can also elect members as Party Spokespersons to communicate with the media on specific topics. The Executive Committee can appoint Spokespersons between National Council meetings but the appointment can only be until the appointment is ratified or not by the next National Council meeting.

    11 Standing Orders Committee

    11.1 National Conference will elect a Standing Orders Committee. This committee will
    be:

    (a) elected each year by the outgoing conference to deal with next year’s conference;

    made up of ten people; one member from each region and one other member from anywhere, but including no members of the Executive Committee.

    (c) The minutes of all meetings should be forwarded to the national Executive Committee for information.

    (d) responsible for the timing and running of conference agenda, including sending out a prioritised motion or resolution ballot form to each branch, and facilitating the compositing of motions where appropriate.

    11.2 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.

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

    12 Standing Committees

    12.1 National Conference can establish standing committees to oversee specific areas of the party’s work. Standing committees provide an opportunity for office bearers and spokespersons to share their workload and for the experience of as broad a range of party members as possible to contribute to the development of party policy and campaigning initiatives. Standing Committees should meet at least 3 times per year.

    10.2 Standing committees are accountable to the national committees of [Left Unity/The Left Party],which have the right to endorse, amend or reject the proposals of standing committees. Standing committees should provide regular reports outlining their work and proposals for action. The minutes of all meetings of standing committees should be forwarded to the national Executive Committee for information.

    13 Networks

    13.1 Members can organise in Networks agreed by National Conference/National Council/Regional Council.

    13.2 (a)Networks can be set up to encourage the self-organisation of party members who suffer from specific discrimination and to enable them to organise collectively in campaigns against oppression and to take a lead in the party on these issues.

    (b) Networks can also be set up to bring together party members interested in campaigning on a specific issue. Such networks 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.

    (c) Networks must submit their constitution to National Conference/National Council/Regional Council for approval prior to being launched. These should state who is eligible to join the network, the activities it intends to undertake and how the internal democracy of the network will operate. Networks should submit written reports to National Council/Regional Council on their activity at least twice a year. The minutes of all meetings should be forwarded to the national Executive Committee for information.

    11.3 (a) Each Network representing an oppressed group (as defined in 13.2 (a)) has the right to send one delegate to the National Council. Regional Networks representing oppressed groups have the right to send one delegate to Regional Council.

    (b) Only networks representing oppressed groups have rights to submit motions to party bodies.

    14 Youth and Student Groups

    14.1 (a)The [Young Socialists] will organise meetings of members of [Left Unity/the Left Party] up to the age of 26 years old in order to co-ordinate activities by young members of the party.

    (b) The [Young Socialists] will hold an annual meeting/conference at which a Youth Organiser, a National Council delegate, five members of the Youth and Student Committee, and any other
    necessary positions will be elected.

    (c) The [Young Socialists] will submit written reports on its activities to National Council at least twice a year.

    14.2 (a) [Left Unity/The Left Party] will endeavour to organise student groups in each college/university.

    (b) The party’s student groups will come together in an annual meeting/conference at which a Student Co-ordinator, National Council delegate, five members of the Youth and Student Committee and any other necessary positions will be elected.

    (c) The party’s student groups will submit collective written reports on their activities to National
    Council at least twice a year.

    14.3 Where the [Young Socialists] and the party’s student groups have established appropriate
    regional structures, they may apply to Regional Councils for rights to send one delegate and to
    submit motions. The minutes of all meetings should be forwarded to the national Executive
    Committee or, for regional networks, the regional council for information.

    15 Trade Union Groups

    [Left Unity/The Left Party] will endeavour to organise groups of party members in each trade union in order to co-ordinate their trade union activities and promote the party’s trade union strategy. The minutes of all group meetings should be forwarded to the national Trade Union Committee for information.

    16 Platforms

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

    16.2 All Platforms/Tendencies should be open – their constitution and aims & objectives should be brought to the attention of the National Council and should be available to all other party members.

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

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

    • John Penney says:
      July 16, 2013 at 8:49 pm

      An lot of good stuff here SeanT, but two areas which I think are very contentious:

      1. I see no reason at all to consider LU “standing aside” or “asking the permission” of Plaid Cymru Leftie members to establish Left Unity in Wales. Plaid Cymru is NOT a socialist Party – but like the SNP is a party based fundamentally on petty nationalism and the divisive Welsh language issue – with the “Leftie” policies and rhetoric an ever changing tactical policy dish. We no more need to see Plaid as some sort of genuine radical “Left party” than the currently Left posturing SNP (many of whose current policies significantly outflank Labour on the left), or indeed the Greens. The SSP is a more complex issue – opinion apparently differing amongst Scottish Lefties as to whether they are still viable as a Left alternative. I’m open to persuasion on them.

      Secondly I think your proposals on Trades union affiliations , as detailed are an absolute anti OMOV bear trap. What “affiliation ” means is crucially not explained. Unless it meant trades union branches and/or national unions publically committing themselves to support key LU policies which hd been discussed widely with their members, and handing over significant sums of money in return for the “delegates” proposed, these proposals are an open invitation to the usual Trots to get their poorly attended local trades union branch to “affiliate” , and then “hey presto” the regional LU structure , and possibly LU national conference is knee deep in the “usual suspects” – wearing their bogus meaningless “trades union delegate” hats, and demanding extra votes.

      Trades union “affiliation” would have to be a meaningful thing – and paying significant CASH is a good indicator of real commitment (rather than a bogus, cobbled together meaningless “affiliation” cooked up by a few Trots at a poorly attended union branch meeting) – for any significant voting delegate rights to be handed over to a dubious bunch of supposedly representative Trades union “delegates” ! The issue of trades union affiliation and related delegate rights and voting rights needs a LOT more work ! Those of us who’ve been round the political track a few times are sick and tired of a handful of Far Lefties subverting the OMOV principle in political movements by acquiring innumerable extra voting rights via wearing many different , bogusly acquired , delegate “hats”.

      • SeanT says:
        July 17, 2013 at 11:51 am

        Good points John, demonstrating that simply getting a beautifully crafted constitution isn’t going to sort out all real life issues.

        First of all, my central point about how we should organise in Wales and Scotland is that they are separate nations and can’t just be treated as English regions with funny accents. My proposed form of words is (6.1(b)) ‘In Scotland and Wales, [Left Unity/Left Party] members will work in, or in partnership with, left organisations in those countries with which the party has fraternal relations.’

        This doesn’t require us to ‘stand aside’ or ‘ask the permission of Plaid Cymru Leftie members’ to establish Left Unity in Wales. What it does (I would hope) is recognise that the political situation in the two non English countries is complex and requires us to try to work with other left groupings indigenous to them, as far as is possible. I would also hope that it indicates that we accept the need to listen and learn from our members and supporters in those countries and accept that they might be in a better position to make tactical decisions than a largely largely English national leadership – at least sometimes!

        However, I’m completely open to working up another form of words.

        Yes, of course, the issue of TU affiliations is a thorny one. But part of the raison d’être of our project, in my view, is that organised labour has been disenfranchised and left without a political vehicle for its voice. If we aspire to build a party that can provide a voice for organised labour then we have to find the right mechanism for trade unionists to have a voice within the party.

        You are absolutely right that affiliation must be meaningful and not merely a manipulation of a union’s internal democratic procedures (although I think that historically the union leaderships are much more guilty of this than your handfuls of far left subversives). Ironically, that’s why there is – at one level anyway – some merit in Milliband’s proposals for opt-in affiliations to the Labour Party. However, I think that we have to respect the independence of the unions and recognise that despite everything they are still the most democratic (and heavily regulated) voluntary organisations we have. Therefore I don’t think that we could tell them how to elect their representatives to our party bodies. However, I hope that the draft is clear that no delegate to any party body will ever have more than one vote. We don’t anyone ever wielding a block vote.

        I raised the issue of union affiliation in the discussion on membership in the fist strand of our discussions. At that point I thought that it was an issue that we should perhaps leave to one side for the moment. Given Progress’s recent success in panicking Milliband into further attacking trade unionist’s role in Labour (other than election fodder), now I’m not so sure, which is why I have included the references to affiliation in my draft. However, an alternative approach might be to include a statement of intent to move towards establishing TU affiliations (and setting up youth and student sections) and leave discussions on the appropriate procedures to a later day.

  4. Mike Scott says:
    July 16, 2013 at 4:10 pm

    I’ve got a number of points to make, so please bear with me! Firstly, there are two things that aren’t mentioned at all and need to be debated and to form part of the recommendation to the conference in November:
    1. The structure must be designed to include people without access to the internet. I know this is a nuisance, but it’s basic democracy: access is heavily class-based, in that the 40%+ without access are almost all from the poorest and most disadvantaged groups – the very people we are seeking to represent, in fact! The more we grow, the more of these people we will be looking to recruit.
    2. We can’t avoid the question of money. As groups haven’t got any money apart from donations at present, this means only people with spare cash can go to national meetings and that is completely unacceptable. It isn’t really practical for groups to demand a local subscription, so we need to propose an adequate level of national subs and a mechanism for funding local groups. This would cover publicity, meeting expenses, travelling costs, etc. I suggest a sliding scale, from say £1 a year for those on benefit to maybe £25 for those with good incomes. The pooled fare system may be the least worst option for the moment, but varies wildly depending on the location of the meeting and still means that a fixed amount of cash must be found by everyone, come what may.

    Going on to the draft document, can I begin by saying this is a pretty good start – so congrats on that! Detailed comments are as follows:

    4.d.ii – I agree with John P: there must be some degree of freedom for groups, but they will be representing LU to their local population, so can’t just say/do what they like. At the very least, there will need to be clear guidelines from the NCC.
    4.f.v – This is admirably democratic, but not very practical! Are we really going to arrange conferences where 9,999 people might turn up?
    4.f.vii – I’ve said in earlier posts that I’m concerned at how we can prevent the same thing happening to LU as happened to the Socialist Alliance and others in the past. In my view, this will give the green light to people wanting to do just that. I believe that only individuals should be able to submit motions, etc. I realise that it will be difficult to devise a foolproof system to preserve our independence, but we must at least try.
    4.f.ix – In relation to pooled fares, see my comment above.
    4.h.iii – Presumably, people would be able to stand again at the end of their elected term?
    4.h.vi – What would happen if not enough men/women stood in a particular region?
    4.h.vi – This is a practical problem rather than one of principle: having no leader does avoid the “Galloway/Scargill Syndrome”, but it caused serious problems for the Greens, who had to abandon it – and is likely to cause LU the same problems. Whether we like it or not, prospective members, prospective voters and the media want someone they can identify a party with. If they can’t see anyone, they will go elsewhere. It was Caroline Lucas who gave the Greens their national profile and they have suffered since she resigned – you can’t just make up a load of policies and expect the world to beat a path to your door. Yes, there is an absolute need for full accountability, but we will need someone who is good at putting LU forward and can project us as serious players – see also Syriza. If we truly want to become a mass party, we have to do the things that will make that happen.
    4.h.vi – The proposed quorum for the NCC is much too optimistic and will lead to a lot of wasted journeys. I’d suggest something like 55-60%.
    4.i.i – As 4.f.vii above. This will only encourage those wanting to undermine or take over LU: people wanting to stand should do so as themselves, not on behalf of another organisation.

    Hopefully you’re still here and I look forward to your comments!

    Cheers, Mike

  5. johnkeeley says:
    July 16, 2013 at 8:23 pm

    Richard/John Penny,

    I’m writing a short article to try & make the point about participatory democracy requiring a new approach.

    Although challenging I offer it as critical support to the hard job of creating something new that can change British politics for the better.

    Regards,

    John

  6. johnkeeley says:
    July 16, 2013 at 9:04 pm

    New Party, New Approach?

    Is Left Unity going to offer a new approach to politics?

    Thanks to the neo-liberal onslaught, most people, especially the young, have given up on party politics. More than that they’ve given up on the system: the police, the media, corporations, etc.

    For those who already know the problem is capitalism & the solution is socialism, a new organisation is required that is more than just another political party, however broad or vanguardist. The new organisation needs to offer the glimmer of what a post-capitalist system looks like. That is, participatory.

    We don’t need to spell out a detailed vision of how socialism will work in practice. We just need to capture its emancipatory spirit of humanity freeing itself from the profit system & so being able to make collective, democratic decisions that can meet human needs – to put people before profit.

    No doubt many in LU feel this is exactly the direction of travel. Unfortunately, I’m not so sure. Although the policy commission on internal democracy mentions ‘e-democracy’, I’m not sure what’s been presented so far captures the real essence & spirit of participatory democracy.

    A new outlook is required that is totally separate from the old, hierarchical politics of social democracy, or even Leninism. To engage the masses, & more specifically those young protesters who regards themselves as left-wing but are totally put-off party political ‘vote-for-me’ culture, the new organisation needs to build participatory decision-making into its whole fabric.

    This can be achieved relatively easily in this internet-dominated world, if the will is there. The new organisation simply has a website that allows members to participate directly in decision-making by having polls. It doesn’t replace local groups meeting to discuss, indeed, it can actively encourage debate & discussion when people know that their vote counts.

    Neither does it replace the need for an elected national council, or co-ordinating body. Just what gets voted on will need some form of co-ordination & cohesion. Participatory democracy doesn’t mean no leadership, but it does mean that leadership comes through persuasive argument rather than an elite grabbing power. Those with executive powers, at national & local level, will need to be held to account & have time limits, as already recognised by the suggested draft document.

    Without LU really committing to participatory democracy it runs the risk of ending up as sounding like another group of power-seeking politicians.

    We need more than just a new party, we need a new approach to politics.

    • Duncan Blessed says:
      July 17, 2013 at 1:04 pm

      *wavy hands*

      Yes, utterly right. It should be obvious by now that a new form and attraction of participatory, direct democracy exists and must be integrated into (inter)national organisations. Some of us are watching IOPS closely John, I wish it all the best.

      https://incubusblog.wordpress.com/2013/06/04/some-thoughts-on-a-new-social-movement/

      If we are not building a NEW social movement that incorpates existing (far)left parties, anti-cuts/austerity campaigns, works alongside and creates spontaneous protests and movements (e.g. Barnet Library occupation), then we are failing to break out of the deep miasma of stagnation and uncreative thinking that has plagued the left for at least half a century.

      I was struck by Michael Albert’s experiences in Venezuela in 2009, talking about the democratic local councils and how they have empowered a whole generation to progress their own revolution regardless of what their elected leaders think. This is an excellent stance to take. No offence to our national committee, but we shouldn’t care what they think. They should be following our orders, cf Subcommandant Marcos.
      http://www.zcommunications.org/venezuela-peoples-power-by-site-administrator

      Consider the difference between Occupy and SPEW and SWP. Occupy was creative, novel, nebulous, free, an event rather than an organisation. SPEW and SWP are uncreative, desperately repetitive, constrained in so many ways but exceptionally good at surviving with a core of a few hundred missionaries and organising wen they chose to. Both comprise qualities that will be integral to the new politics. Basically, a creative, fun, serious, well-organised but free and democratic organisation.

      I would reiterate the points about Scotland, Wales and NI not necessarily being appropriate for a new organisation to be set up there.

      • johnkeeley says:
        July 18, 2013 at 9:44 am

        Duncan,

        Thanks for your support.

        I’m not a wavy hands person myself, it all seems a little bizarre to me.
        And as a Marxist I’m not a follower of Michael Albert (although Parecon is interesting as a vision).

        But I don’t think socialists, even revolutionary socialists, should be scared of participatory democracy. It is after all what socialism is all about, isn’t it?

        Just how is the common/social ownership of the means of production exercised in practice if it isn’t through some form of participatory, direct democracy?

        The problem we have is there are those who because they know the theory better & who have more experience organising, think that the organisation structures should reflect that. That participatory democracy would be a free-for-all & end up with endless debates & arguments going nowhere.

        Well, that could happen. There is a balance to be struck. There is the need for some kind of national body to ensure co-ordination & cohesion. But that doesn’t mean that there should only be democracy on one day of the year – the day of the national conference. These events are more like rubber-stamp exercises.

        Democracy should be year round with polls on-line. These will need to be dove-tailed with national policy forums, say every quarter, along with on-line forums to explore the arguments.

        It may well be that LU isn’t ready for this. It may well be successful with the old approach. But for me it is a very big missed opportunity.

  7. Abu Jamal says:
    July 17, 2013 at 1:26 pm

    Hi folks due to a technical problem I have been unable to contribute to this discussion until today.
    I strongly agree with Sean T.’s approach on LU focusing on England.
    the UK and the British State is in part a product of the defeat of the Radical forces [Levellers/Diggers/Ranters et al] during the English Revolution. The Union is a reactionary structure that has been in the process of breaking up ever since Pearse and Connolly launched the Easter Rising in Dublin in 1916.
    Our Party needs to contribute to the final break up of the UK.
    We can do this by being constitutionally Republican and adopt Sean T’s approach to the question of organising in Wales and Scotland. Organising LU in Ireland North or South should be ‘beyond the pale’
    Effectively, This will mean Our Party is English, Republican and Socialist that works with and respects those fighting for social and environmental justice within the neighbouring territories of Scotland and Wales. We should also consider the question of how LU organises in Cornwall and engage in discussion with the comrades of Meybon Kernow.

    Last week I held an informal ‘focus group’ with friends neighbours and family ranging in age from 16 to 73 – none of whom have ever been involved in ‘Politics’ – When I asked them what they thought about the possibility of a new party getting anywhere against the establishment parties they were engaged but cynical… when I asked about possible names ‘The Left Party’ was rejected immediately by all as ‘meaningless’ – I didn’t even propose a Name with the ‘S’ word in it because I knew it would produce a groan… When suggested the name ‘People United’ over half of the ‘focus group’ responded positively.
    So based on this entirely unscientific data – I then wrote my contribution to the Internal Democracy and Constitution Commission – which I published on Worcestershire Left Unity facebook page… interestingly enough it got over 255 views within 24 hours which is not bad as our page only has 35 ‘likes’. Below is my contribution… the salient points of which I would like to be composited into Sean’s Draft please not under objectives the clauseIV..
    Left Unity has begun the process of establishing a framework of basic principles via an Internal Democracy and Constitutional Commission. This is my rough draft of a contribution to that discussion.

    Name:

    The Name of Our Party is “PEOPLE UNITED”.
    Our party campaigns for Fairness, fights for Justice and demands Respect.

    Membership:

    Any individual whose normal place of residence is in the Country of England and who shares the aims and objectives of PEOPLE UNITED can become a member. Any group of 5 or more members in a geographical area can form a branch of PEOPLE UNITED. Our goal is the establishment of branches that mirror Parliamentary Constituencies.

    Aim and Objectives:

    Our Primary Aim is:
    To win popular mass support for the creation of a Green and Pleasant Socialist Republic in England.

    Our Primary Objectives are:

    I.
    To Encourage and respect the self organisation and empowerment of all sections of society in England who are oppressed, alienated and marginalised in society

    II.
    To Work with those in the neighbouring countries of Cornwall, Wales, Scotland and Ireland who are struggling for social and environmental justice.

    III.
    To Work with those across Europe and Internationally who are struggling for social and environmental justice.

    IV.
    To Establish the common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange, and the best obtainable system of popular administration and control of each industry or service.

    V.
    To Participate in Local and Parliamentary Elections in order to popularise the Aims and Objectives of PEOPLE UNITED.

    VI.
    To Ensure that members of PEOPLE UNITED who win elected office are accountable to their electorate via developing new forms of direct participatory democracy including the right of recall.

    VII.
    To Secure by reform of existing institutions of or via the creation of new structures a new society based upon PEOPLE’S POWER.

    Basic Principles

    1. Democracy
    The linguistic roots of the word Democracy comes from two Greek words – Demos, meaning peoples and Kratos meaning power. Therefore our Party not only advocates Peoples Power as a political objective for the whole of society but it functions as a living example of Peoples Power at every organisational level.
    2. Votes
    The way our Democracy works in practice is based upon the result or outcome of Votes.
    Every member of our party is encouraged and will be empowered to actively participate in internal discussions. Every member of our party is encouraged and will be empowered to contribute their thoughts, feelings and ideas as part of a genuine collective.
    3. Decisions
    At all levels of our Party Decisions shall be made on the basis that a Majority of Votes for any given proposal has been achieved. Once a Decision has been made our Party encourages and will empower all members of our party to take collective ownership of decisions made and to implement them in practice.
    4. Action
    Our Party seeks to encourage and empower all people in society to become active participants in collective action to make positive changes in our world. All members of our Party are encouraged and will be empowered to act as champions of the oppressed. Together we act and via our action we inspire other to join the struggle for Peoples Power.
    5. Conflict
    Our Party recognises the fractured, atomised and individualistic culture dominant in capitalist society ferments social conflict. Our Party encourages and will empower all members to resolve conflicts via open democratic discussion. Our Party encourages and will empower all members to respect each other and value cultural diversity. Our Party will establish a Conflict Resolution Committee elected by National Conference. The Conflict Resolution Committee will encourage and empower any member who has a grievance to come forward, seeking to resolve any dispute via an open fair and transparent process.

    Worcestershire Left Unity

    PEOPLE UNITED – fairness, justice, respect

  8. Hoom says:
    July 17, 2013 at 1:28 pm

    Some somewhat disjointed thoughts.

    John P is right that we can’t have a situation where elected LU representatives are doing things like voting through cuts. However, that should be avoided by conference decisions being binding. What we shouldn’t have is a situation where we have the NCC handing down orders. They simply shouldn’t be given that remit.

    This links into the fact we probably need some kind of code of conduct specifically aimed at elected representatives of LU. Anyone in that position is going to have to operate somewhat differently then a grassroots member of LU. We also need to look at issues like whether we’re going to limit what expenses can be claimed etc.

    I’m against the 50% elected representatives having to be women. It implies strongly that we consider sexism to be a form of structural oppression that trumps all others (we don’t have a quota for race, class, disability etc). It also is very prone to being used as a tool for bureaucratic maneuvering; hence the Labour right are so in favour of it. It dilutes the principle of OMOV. Most importantly, it’s a band-aid solution. If women aren’t involved in LU, we have some serious issues that this kind of quick-fix isn’t going to address. However, this is probably outside the scope of this commission. It’s obviously a contentious issue and will probably need to be addressed by conference.

    We do need some kind of coordinating committee. Even to do things as basic as booking halls for meetings. I’m less convinced by the need for principal speakers. While the Green Party is an example of the dangers of not having one, it’s equally an example of what can go wrong when you do. If someone does an Icke, that would cause immense amounts of damage to LU. I’d like to suggest a democratic solution to this issue. On the ballot papers for principal speakers, we need two extra options. We need a Re-Open Nominations option (we need this in all elections, to be properly democratic). But we also need a “no Principal Speaker” option. I suspect I’ll be in a minority on this, but I should still be able to vote for my preferred option.

    On e-democracy. Mike Scott’s point about lack of Internet access being heavily interlinked with poverty is a very important one. (There’s also something of a generational issue to take into account). However, I’d suggest that face-to-face conferences are even more of an issue for excluding people. So, overall, I think doing things online where feasible is the least worst option, especially with the option for postal votes outlined. Looking at some of the experiments with liquid democracy would be useful I think. This is probably one the policy commission is going to need to look at separately though. There are various technical issues that you’re going to need to draft in a techie to look at, if you don’t already have one.

  9. Abu Jamal says:
    July 17, 2013 at 1:35 pm

    I am also posting on these Discussion Strand a contribution from Stephen Hall the LU comrade from the glorious town of Wigan [birthplace of the Gerrard Winstanley the pioneer of Eco Socialism in England]

    The type of Party we need:

    In my view what we need is a new
    i) broad, democratic, pluralist,
    ii) egalitarian,
    iii) environmentally conscious,
    iv) internationalist
    v) anti-Capitalist,
    vi) bottom-up driven party, which is representative of the working class, the especially oppressed, and the mass of ordinary people across England, and elsewhere in the World.

    I do not mention the people of Scotland and Wales because I believe they should decide what kind of party they need and want themselves and the relationship they might want to have with a party, such as I am outlining for England. Ideally, however, that might be one of a close working relationship voluntarily entered into by all concerned.

    What is meant by broad?

    What is meant by a broad party is one open to all shades of opinion within the working class movement, amongst the especially oppressed and the mass of ordinary people as a whole, provided that such opinion upholds the interests of the entire movement as a whole, rather than a particular section of it, i.e. is anti-racist, internationalist, egalitarian, secular, non-sexist, is against ageism, discrimination against gays, lesbians, transsexuals, and which does not advance the interests of any particular section of the same above those of another. A party which is not based on any specific ideological doctrine or particular philosophical outlook, but simply on the common interests of all the exploited and oppressed within society.

    What is meant by democratic?

    Fundamentally it means equal participation of everyone in the party’s decision making processes i.e one person one vote. It means every member having an equal say, and if a general consensus is not possible, after an open and full debate amongst the membership, the rule of the majority being applied in terms of practical policy.

    What is meant by pluralist?

    Pluralism is closely related to the above, however, it also includes a recognition that everyone will not necessarily agree on everything. That such differences can co-exist and that minority views should have the right to be heard, to be represented, and to be able to convince the majority that they may be wrong.

    It also recognises, that authority within any new party needs to be shared and not monopolised even by the majority, that party membership is voluntary thing, and its ‘discipline’ as such cannot be imposed on anyone but ultimately needs to be politically won and voluntarily accepted.

    What is meant by egalitarian?

    It means everyone within the party should be treated equally as well as the party as a whole having a similar outlook and attitude to society in general. However, as the society we currently live in is patently unequal, this will inevitably necessitate, for a period at least, certain exceptional provisions within the party’s rules to address this present lack of equality arising historically from society. These measures would include the right of those historically especially oppressed sections of society such as women, gays, minority ethnic groups, etc being allowed to organize their own caucuses as and when required to ensure their special oppression is properly addressed both within the party, and society in general. By doing this we will be able to demonstrate how the party as a whole are the real champions and promoters of equality both in our own ranks and society at large, from a current position of inequality.

    What is meant by environmentally conscious?

    In its simplest terms we need to be a green party. We need to champion the defence of our environment, our air, water, wild life and climate all of which are slowly being destroyed at the altar of profit, and which threatens a global calamity in the not too distant future if not urgently addressed. There is no contradiction between the defence of ordinary people’s living standards, public services, civil rights and conditions at work, etc and the defence of the environment and fight to prevent the possibility of irreversible and catastrophic climate change. This is because there are much more environmentally friendly and sustainable options available to us, which, if they were combined with wealth redistribution (most of the World’s wealth is currently monopolized by a tiny parasitic minority), could ensure a decent life for everyone on the planet.

    What is meant by Internationalist?

    The interests of ordinary people in our own country is no different to those of other countries and the party we need, should make that absolutely clear at the outset. It should state that if we have anything in common with the past then it is that we continue to subscribe to the motto: “Workers of the World Unite”. That we are against the policy of war by our own Government, and the occupation of other countries by British troops and those of Britain’s so-called allies in NATO, as well as other foreign powers, so long as society is dominated by a tiny parasitic minority and their political representatives, including Labour within our own country, rather than those of the mass of the population.

    What is meant by anti-Capitalist?

    The Capitalist system based on the private ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange and the profit motive, are ultimately the root of all evil in society today both nationally and internationally. The party we need, whilst being supportive of all reforms of the Capitalist system which would in the short term, improve the lot of the mass of the people both here and overseas, should however, be unequivocally committed to the abolition of this system at the earliest possible opportunity, and its replacement by one based on the common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange, the principle that the Earth was made a common treasury for all irrespective of person, and the introduction of the most popular system of administration of each industry, service and society in general It should on this basis, make a clear commitment that if were to gain ‘political power’, that it would seek to mobilise its entire base of support within society towards that objective, its most immediate task being the nationalisation of the Banks and all other financial institutions and the full statisation of the credit system, along with a range of other decisive measures to break the power of Capital within society, as agreed by the party as a whole.

    What is meant by a bottom-up rather than top-down organisation

    A “bottom-up” approach to organisation is one that primarily works from the grassroots upwards. A larger number of people working together, causing a decision to arise from their joint involvement and participation which is then disseminated upwards under their collective authority in the organisational structure to the higher levels, who are then to a greater or lesser extent bound by them.

    A decision by a number of grassroots activists to undertake a certain specific action is a “bottom-up” decision. A bottom-up approach allows for more experimentation and a better feeling for what is needed at the bottom, and ensures ultimate decision making powers at the bottom of any organizational structure, rather than at the top.

    This approach contrasts with “top-down” organisation, where decisions are primarily, and in many cases wholly made by fewer people or even a single individual at the top of an organisational structure. Decisions are then disseminated under their authority to lower levels in the organizational structure/hierarchy, who are, to a greater or lesser extent, then bound by them.

    In terms of the organisational needs of any new party claiming to represent the majority of the people, there needs to be a clear understanding and agreement concerning the connection between the two methods or organisation, with primacy being given to the bottom-up approach, and decisions being made by larger numbers of people at the bottom of whatever organisational structure is agreed on, rather than vice versa.

    At the same time, if ‘higher’ bodies are genuinely representative of the grassroots membership, there can be certain positive aspects to a top-down approach in terms of their ability to make quick decisions, as and when such may be required, and as a result of their (theoretically) better overview of the whole organisation and its membership as a whole. However, due to the development of communication technology it is now possible to extend any such decision making to almost every level of any organisational structure including the grassroots membership, In so far as this is so, this principle should be applied as far as possible.

    Executive action versus elite leadership and ‘Leaders’

    All elected bodies of the membership, whether these be local (as in a local authority area as opposed to smaller town, village or ward branches which may only require a Chair, Secretary & Treasurer), regional or national, should be seen as of an executive nature. i.e existing for the purpose of faithfully executing the decisions of the broader membership. Such that the word leadership might have any relevance in any new party then this should be to describe only the role of such bodies in formallly ‘leading the party’s practical work’ in the broader political arena, rather than of them standing above the membership and representing any kind of elite ‘leadership’ group.

    In terms of the practical execution of tasks, a degree of flexibility obviously needs to be provided for, which allows for initiative and executive decisions to be taken without constant reference to the entire membership especially when they are of a minor nature. However, all executive bodies, or individual members of them, need to be fully accountable to the membership as a whole for the decisions they may make, and subject to sanction, should those decisions be deemed not to be in the best interest of the membership if this is so decided by those members responsible for electing them.

    The role of all elected bodies in addition to the execution of agreed policy above, along with the role of members of the party as a whole, should be seen as facilitators of the wider working class movement to emancipate itself from its own exploitation and oppression rather than doing it for them or on their behalf; to develop its own self activity, to promote the involvement of ever wider layers including in particular the especially oppressed including women, youth, lgbts, people from black minority ethnic backgrounds, etc, etc.

    A maximum length of term in office for all individuals in any post needs to also be established, to promote the regular rotation of members serving as office holders, and on local, regional and national executive bodies. Five years in any particular post or body, based on the annual election of all posts, on any account would seem to be more than sufficient for anyone to occupy any post in either a political party or civil life in general.

    All executive bodies elected by the membership should also guarantee equal representation for women (unless this is not practically possible) as well as for at least two places for young members (U21), two places for lgbt, and two places for bme members, and generally consist of no more than say 30 members, so as to allow everyone a full opportunity to speak/contribute to the discussion and to avoid a monopolisation of any meeting by the most vocal/able individuals

    We need a truly national rather than a London/South East centric organisation

    One of the biggest problems on the existing ‘Left’ and with existing ‘Left’ parties and campaigns for many decades is a de facto domination not only by generally more ‘able’, articulate, affluent, educated, white males with a greater than average amount of ‘free time’ at their disposal, but also by those in particular who live or find it relatively easy to travel to London for national meetings of almost ALL so-called ‘national’ campaign bodies and political organisations/groups, which in the main are almost always held in London, rather than across the country as whole.

    This leads to the development not of a truly national, geographically broad and pluralistic, or nationally representative, democratic, bottom-up and egalitarian organisation representative of the working class, the especially oppressed and the mass of ordinary people across the whole of England (or Britain as a whole) or of national campaigns which claim to be of a similar nature, but rather ones with a considerable London/South East of England centric bias, which are geographically and politically narrower, less pluralistic, less representative, less democratic and egalitarian, and which in so far as they are intrinsically dominated by those who live in, or alternatively find it relatively easy to travel to meetings in London, organisations/campaigns which are considerably more top down than they are bottom up in nature in terms of the country as a whole.

    This results in those from the ‘Provinces’ including those who are least advantaged, being more or less consistently compelled to get up earlier and spend considerably more of their time travelling to and from any national meetings. It means they are also generally deprived of the ability to participate in the discussions and decision making of nationally elected officers or national executive bodies which formally (or informally) meet and decide on things on a day to day basis during the week in London, which prepare and set national agendas, decide on who will lead off this or that discussion/debate, write particular ‘line’ documents, and who will chair meetings, etc, amongst themselves.

    It also fosters a political culture amongst those who due simply to their proximity or residence in the capital where national political power nominally rests (in the case of the House of Commons – a nationally elected geographically representative assembly) and who find it much easier access to the aforementioned meetings, rather than those having a genuine political ‘base’ in a community anywhere elsewhere in the country (even within London and the South East) of consciously or unconsciously regarding themselves de facto as THE almost permanent national ‘leaders’ of the same organisations or campaigns, whatever their formal claims to the contrary.

    It is in my view, no coincidence that virtually ALL the so-called ‘leaders’ of all of Britain’s ‘Left’ political groups reside in London (or find it easy to get there), and have generally remained the ‘leaders’ of those groups for many decades. It is no coincidence that the apparatus of all of them is based in London, that the organized Left is dominated by London based people or people who find London easy to get to, that few people outside this generally London based ‘elite’ have much ‘national’ influence, and all the more so in the case of the less advantaged who live farthest away from London.

    We need to not only ‘feminise’ any new party and make it a welcome environment for all the especially oppressed, we also need to ‘nationalise’ it i.e. make it a truly national party and remove its current London centricity by better enfrachising and empowering those members of any new party living in the North, South West and Midlands, whatever their background.

    We can do this by positively discriminating in favour of those areas: moving national meetings around the country so that only one in five meetings at most takes place in London, and the others take place, in cities like Birmingham, Bristol, Leeds/Sheffield, Manchester/Liverpool, Newcastle, Leicester. By situating any national office in Birmingham and by various other measures commonly. Also, by using Skype/video conferencing so as to negate the possibility of the domination of any possible London (or other big city) ‘elite’.

    • Richard Murgatroyd says:
      July 18, 2013 at 12:27 pm

      Thanks Mark. Stephen from Wigan has already asked us to post this and James (co-convenor) has done so on Strand 1 but its points are really relevant to this strand as well so well worth the reread.

      The proposed draft at the top of the page is an attempt to put up some concrete, detailed rules for discussion. Obviously these are informed by general principles and personally I feel that the draft (although still in need of much amendment) does at least attempt to embody most of the key principles Stephen sets out:

      – OMOV and equality within the party
      – strong measures to ensure accountability at all levels
      – measures to make LU truly ‘national’ with for example special provisions on ensuring there are not too many national conferences and they are held in convenient locations
      – an attempt to apply e-democracy (although more work needed on this)
      – a collective leadership to discourage egotism and factionalsim, with representative provisions designed to promote pluralism, open and transparent decision making, fixed terms of office and guaranteed 50% representation of women
      – rights of members of political platforms and sectional groups (LGBT, BME, disabled etc) to put motions and nominate post-holders, but not have special voting privileges

      But this is only a first draft and one possible base upon which to build. For example Sean has suggested adopting and adapting the constitution of the SSP. In the end it will be the members who decide. given that we have a clear task to produce a (or several) possible draft constitutions by November at the very latest, I think the key thing is that we focus on turning these general principles into concrete constitutional rules and provisions so LU can set off on a sound, democratic footing.

      Best

      Rich

  10. Richard Murgatroyd says:
    July 17, 2013 at 3:19 pm

    Hi all – apologies for length but its unavidable
    There are loads of issues here, all of them complex, so will try to provide some thoughts and a rationale of the draft proposals put up on top of this page, which I would still suggest are a better starting point than adopting the SSP constitution largely wholesale. Incidentally one (among several reasons) why James and myself have organised this open web-based discussion is that it is easier to keep an overview of the many issues that will arise. Anyway, bearing in mind that our task here is to create concrete proposals here goes..
    1. Conduct of elected representatives
    The draft does not cover this and rather than amend the section on local groups which could be seen as the centre imposing itself on local groups I agree with Hoom’s point that it would be better in a separate section/code of conduct that sets out the minimum expectation we would have for people elected to external bodies. John P. – any chance you could draft proposals please – personally I would like to also see a commitment to take the average wage and a clear time limit on acting in public office.
    2. Participatory democracy and the internet
    Mikes point about the dangers of elitism are important but it also true to say that most young people use the internet as a communication tool as a matter of course. So bearing that in mind I suggest that John P’s suggested wording is sufficient at this stage. BUT this the whole area of e-democracy has to be taken seriously and hopefully good practise will evolve over time. However, John and others are right to say the draft doesn’t really engage with it satisfactorily – its such a big and complex issue, with the devil in the detail, it would require a long and careful constitutionla debate. As I understand it our task is to get together a working document that will at least set LU (or whatever we end up being called) on a democratic and well-organised direction.
    3. Political platforms/caucusses/factions and sectional groups (ie BME, LGBT, disabled members, youth, women etc
    I think we are all Ok with the idea of having both sectional and platform groups that can freely organise, the question is should the members of them have special privileges? The proposed draft allows these groups/sections to propose motions and nominate candidates in internal elections. But it does not give the members of them any extra voting rights – for example by being able to elect special representatives on any decision making body or at national Conference. This is a compromise position that distinguishes between being able to propose something and decide upon it. Perhaps the threshold for members of these groups exercising their right to propose motions/nominate at 20 members is too low and we should raise the bar? Perhaps the constitution should give extra privileges to members of political platforms by in effect giving them extra votes? The draft proposals take the view that OMOV should apply consistently.
    4. Trade union affiliation
    In a sense this raise similar issues as the above in terms of people having extra votes and the dangers of political shenanigans so beloved by many on the left – the draft is based on the very real and realistic concerns raised by Mike S., John P and others. I should declare an interest here as I used to work for a trade union dealing with organisation and their observations are accurate given the very low number of members who attend meetings or vote in internal elections. The draft therefore deliberately ignores this issue to be considered for another day and having carefully thought about Sean’s comments I remain of the view.
    5. Scotland, Wales and NI
    Elsewhere on this website a Scottish member of LU and this policy commission Joe, responded to the suggestion that all supporters of LU go and join the SSP by saying:
    What on earth gives you the idea that “the new left party should not try to build in opposition to the existing Scottish Socialist Party and that comrades in Scotland who sympathise with Left Unity should join the SSP.” Are you serious? Why on earth would we join a party that shows all the signs of splitting into two? They have gone tumbling from the Tommy Sheridan ‘high’ of 7 MSP’s (admittedly in a former guise), through the nightmare News of The World revelations, to a complete whitewash at the last elections. The people of Scotland are no more interested in parties with names like “the Marxist/Leninist Revolutionary Socialist Collective” or whatever, than are people in England & Wales. We have the chance here to form a party with a credible name, a credible set of policies, with credible politicians. I would be more than happy to welcome SSP members to join us, but I urge you to rethink your advice about Scottish politics.
    Joe Barr.
    Before I make up my mind on this I would be interested to hear what Sean and Mark from Worcestershire would say to Joe or any other Scottish (or Welsh or Northern Irish ) comrade who sees LU as a preferable form of organisation? And if they do want to join LU, why shouldn’t they too have the same rights as members living in England?
    6. National Conference
    The draft shares all the concerns about too many national meetings, cost, accessibility etc but I agree with Mike probably isn’t there yet. The assumption is that there would only be one conference a year but either the National Collective Council (NCC) or local branches or members could trigger another which is surely right. But clearly something needs to be put in place about finance – could you suggest a suitable amendment Mike
    The ideal is for a delegate based structure but given the low number of members at present and support for OMOV the draft assumes most members would want the chance to attend the sovereign policy making body. In many areas there may be no branch. That said I think you are right Mike – maybe we should trigger delegate structures when we reach a lower membership than 10,000 – any thoughts on a number of members/branches?
    7. The National Collective Council as the leadership body
    If we are not going to have loads of national meetings we need a body to take things forward and individual spokespeople to put forward our policies. That means we need accountability is the key. The NCC as proposed in the draft differs from the SSP’s model by building in two forms of representation – individuals directly elected by the members and regional reps nominated by local groups and elected by members in a region. Hopefully this will build in scrutiny of national post-holders. This form of representation will also encourage the party members to debate policies and choose spokespeople they agree with. As the individual post-holders are to be elected by all members – unlike in the SSP model proposed by Sean where they are chosen by conference delegates – the principle of OMOV will consistently apply.
    The option of having a range of spokes-people directly elected will also help encourage key principles supported by all of us – pluralism and accountability, as it is much less likely to see dominant cliques form.
    Regarding equal male/female representation. This isn’t an easy one and there are valid arguments each way. I am always suspicious of quotas but having attended an LU national meeting dominated by middle aged white males like myself I have reflected and come round to the idea of trying something new to ensure that different voices, faces and opinions are heard. Of course we will still elect people according to their politics, but at least we will guarantee gender diversity and the draft assumes that not only is this majority thinking among LU supporters in the country, but is also a good thing.
    The draft on the NCC seeks to discourage over-powerful individuals (such as Tommy Sheridan in the SSP or Galloway in Respect) or small cliques of intolerant, self-perpetuating cadres/permanent General secretaries at the centre (such as the SP or SWP). Although there are disadvantages in terms of public clarity of presentation in having two principal speakers instead of a single leader personally that would be a price I’d be willing to pay. The fact that the Greens abandoned it may tell us more about their trajectory towards ‘respectability’ than anything else.
    key point here for me is that what is proposed is more likely to lead to a diverse, collective and very accountable leadership.
    So all in all, I still feel that the draft presented – although in need of much amendment and improvement – forms a more solid base to build than adopting the SSP’s constitution.

    Best

    Rich

    • John Penney says:
      July 18, 2013 at 7:30 pm

      Draft Code of Conduct for Left Unity Members elected to external bodies:

      All Left Unity members serving in elected positions, (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, tactics principles , and Code of Conduct, of Left Unity. 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)..

      The Code of Conduct rules are:

      a) 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.

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

      c) 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 .

      d) 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.

      e) 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.

      f) 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.

  11. SeanT says:
    July 17, 2013 at 5:38 pm

    I think that the point (or points?) that have been made about the potential of e-democracy are incredibly important. Finding ways to make use of such liberating technology has, surely, to be a key task for a new party that has a commitment to to the radical extension of democracy and democratic practices at its core.

    However, apart from the fact that being an old fart I know virtually nothing about the ways in which technology could be used by the new party (and the wider movement), I’m not sure how references to its use might be included in a draft constitution – or even if such references are necessary. Constitutions are, after all, basically dry technical documents specifying procedures – and when, for example, a constitution might specify that members receive minutes of meetings we wouldn’t normally say that it has to be by first class or second class mail, or hand delivered by the branch secretary using a forked stick.

    I think that in the coming period we will have to experiment in order to develop new and better practices, so it would be unwise to try to define them too tightly now. Perhaps we might include a statement of the party’s commitment to extending and strengthening our democratic procedures through ongoing technical innovation (or something like that)?

  12. gerryc says:
    July 17, 2013 at 10:56 pm

    More time please. I still have some thinking / talking to do on this, but only 1 weekend has passed since this thread effectively started – and that was committed elsewhere! Could I ask that this remain open until we have had at least two weekends to process. The working week is demanding!

    ATB, Gerry

    • Richard Murgatroyd says:
      July 18, 2013 at 11:49 am

      Hi gerry (and all)

      I’m assuming that now the major contentious issues are up and being debated we won’t be moving on until mid-August at the earliest. A lot of people are away on holiday and as you say, these are detailed and complex issues that we have to get right. Setting ourselves false deadines won’t achieve much and will hinder democratic and open debate. I hadn’t realised how many LU supporters were’nt really aware that this discussion is taking place on the website until last nights Huddersfield meeting so its important that we give everyone enough time to get connected, process it and come up with actual detailed draft proposals/amendments.

      It is also possible that we won’t reach a full consensus so may be having to prepare different proposed constitutions (or parts of them) – that will be challenging to draft but lets cross that bridge when/if we come to it.

      Best
      Rich

      • Abu Jamal says:
        July 18, 2013 at 3:32 pm

        hi Rich.
        How did the Huddersfield LU meeting go? I probably played a role in raising awareness of the ‘constitutional’ discussions by posting on the Huddersfield LU facebook group.
        Perhaps – this in a small way shows the real potential of social media for drawing more people into democratic processes.
        When we finally get our founding conference and hopefully Stephen Halls proposal for a national centre in Brum will be adopted we can investigate the best way to use new communication tools and technology to engage rapidly the largest number of people in our parties internal discussions as both yourself and Sean have raised this… I will have a think about how this potential can be reflected in our constitution.
        in solidarity
        Mark

  13. Chris says:
    July 18, 2013 at 12:14 pm

    Hi All,

    I’d just like to comment briefly on the suggestion that Left Unity shouldn’t organise in Scotland or should only organise in conjunction with the SSP.

    As a member of Left Unity Glasgow, I am surprised and disheartened by these suggestions. This issue was raised at the last LU Glasgow meeting and everyone present was taken aback at the suggestion (made by Phil Hearse in a recent article) that “comrades in Scotland who sympathise with Left Unity should join the SSP”, a view which seems to be echoed in some of the comments here.

    The implosion of the SSP in 2006 was the cause of a great deal of bitterness and disillusionment within the Scottish left. In my view, it is a politically spent force and we have returned to a situation where we have various small groups (the SSP, Socialist Party Scotland, ISG (Scotland), SWP etc.) all operating largely independently of each other. The SSP is no more a credible united left party than any of the others.

    There is an appetite in Scotland for the Left Unity project and while Scotland remains part of the UK (which seems likely even post-referendum) we need representation and coordination at a UK level, something which Left Unity offers.

    In short, if we are serious about a united European left, the least we can do is begin with a united UK left! In Left Unity Glasgow we are enthusiastically committed to building the new left party north of the border and it would be a great shame if we were denied that opportunity.

    Best wishes,

    Chris C

    • Abu Jamal says:
      July 18, 2013 at 3:44 pm

      Hi Chris,

      Thanks for your comments on the situation in Scotland.
      Looks like we might end up with a Founding conference where differing conceptions of how LU Should Organise within the UK are debated and voted on.
      If the position that I am advocating wins majority support at the founding conference then I would Imagine Left Unity founding members in Scotland will [if they choose] have to organise their own National Founding Conference and decide their own Constitution and similarly for those comrades in Wales.

      if we are serious about attempting to build a new broad ‘left’ party that seeks to make a big electoral impact then – in my view – we do not need to replicate the UK wide structures of SPEW or the SWP.
      We also need to take into account the recent contribution to the debate made by the Socialist Feminist Republican Leader of Plaid Cymru Leanne Wood
      http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/jul/01/england-new-party-left-plaid-cymru

      I wish Scottish LU comrades every success in Scotland and sincerely believe that how they decide to proceed would be better sorted out by them organising in Scotland. How they decide to do this is up to them.

      • FatOldSon says:
        July 19, 2013 at 4:18 am

        Hello Mark, or do you prefer the whole Mark Anthony thing, or do you want us to call you Abu? I’m happy to call you whatever you prefer. I just need to make a couple of points here.

        Indeed Left Unity in Scotland would have to organise their own National Founding Conference, and decide their own Constitution, as would our comrades in Wales.

        We certainly do not need to follow the structures of SPEW or the SSP, in fact the only structures that matter are the ones already in place. Take a look at the structures as laid down by the boundaries commission. Yes, there are a number of ways it could be improved but ignoring it & setting our own is just folly. If you are serious about standing in opposition to Labour, Lib/Dems and the Tories, then that’s what you need to do, stand right in their faces, toe to toe. Set up groups in the political ground they already have. For Example, if there are 12 MP’s in Bristol (why did I pick Bristol?), then the LU Bristol group needs to look at how many members they can get in each of those constituency areas, then work towards getting 12 candidates to oppose the sitting MP’s.

        Your last paragraph was the main reason I chose to respond. Do you really beleive that? You see it reads to me like; ‘Here’s a pat on the head and a wee sweetie, now off you go and do your own “Scottish” thing, we’ve got much more important “English” stuff to think about.’ I really need to think about whether I am prepared to accept that. I have already explained elsewhere that I think the present LU vision of an outward looking UK wide party that would work closely with our European partners is the absolute bedrock that we work and build from. So please forgive me if I am more than a little taken aback to read that last paragraph. Joe Barr.

  14. Hoom says:
    July 18, 2013 at 1:09 pm

    Sectional & Platform Groups:

    I don’t think any special privileges are needed other then the ones implied by allowing these groups in the first place; the right to define their membership criteria, the right to hold closed meetings etc. The very existence of these groups is going to convey some informal advantages, especially in terms of networking.

    The 20 members threshold to nominate/propose seems reasonable to me. In fact, I think that should apply across the board to all LU members. If a proposal is able to get that level of support at this stage, it’s at least strong enough to be worth discussing. At the moment, with that right only being proposed to platform and sectional groups, you run the risk of people feeling they have to try and form a platform, even if it’s only based on one issue.

    This is linked into e-democracy. In order to stop individual members being too disadvantaged by this, we desperately need a national internet forum for people to communicate with each other. WordPress is fine for discussions like this, but it’s not idea for anything on a larger scale. Without a forum, you run the risk of giving an unfair advantage to people like me who do a lot of our communication online already.

  15. Abu Jamal says:
    July 18, 2013 at 1:29 pm

    Hi to All comrades participating in these discussion strands.

    Its Hot Hot Hot today and I am busy with other work but I will try to draft something.
    On Richards point about Members of LU in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Well as we haven’t adopted a constitution yet and have no members anywhere yet we are free to propose various options on this. In Seans rigging of the SSP constitution there was a framework for this that I feel is acceptable..
    My position is clear. Politically, the circumstances in Wales Scotland and Northern Ireland represent a completely different situation than that in England. It is a political decision if we do take it to become a Party essentially based in England… rather than a Unionist Party of the whole of the UK… As I have said I believe that the break up of the UK is something progressive and is already clearly underway. Others on the left disagree most notably in recent years George Galloway whose attempt to get an Electoral Breakthrough for RESPECT in Scotland was seen by many on the Scottish left as a sectarian and opportunistic raid … which failed in any case and led to the comrades of Socialist Resistance breaking with RESPECT.
    So I am infavour of our new Party being open to membership of those who normal reside in England…. If anyone in Scotland Wales or Heaven Forbid.. Northern Ireland wants to establish something there they can go ahead and sort out there own constitution… of course if they want to participate in the discussions in our new party via processes like facebook groups… Websites.. observer status at our meetings or conferences they can.
    Politically, to constitute ourselves as a Republican Party of the Working Class in England is to make a decisive break with British Imperialism… and all of the negative baggage that has come with that in terms of shackling people to reactionary institutions and ideas.
    The Working Class in England is massively diverse and of course includes people of Welsh, Irish, Scottish, African, Asian, Carribean, European and every other background… and our party will reflect the concerns and respect the identity and heritage of all members. However, fundamentally the arena for our political struggle will be within the territorial boundaries of England and Against the British State.
    that is why I am convinced that the our constitution should make this clear. This is not to disenfranchise anyone in this discussion who may be a LU supporter in Scotland Wales or Northern Ireland or of that heritage living in England… Everyone is free to make a contribution – what the outcome is will be decided by a vote.

    • John Penney says:
      July 18, 2013 at 4:55 pm

      As a socialist who believes that “working men and women really do not have a country to which they owe loyalty – only membership of an international CLASS” I really do take fundamental issue with the view put forward by a number of posters that Left Unity has any obligation to “tail” the diversionary petty nationalist direction that politics in Scotland and Wales has taken in the last few decades.

      The rise of petty nationalism as an electoral and ideological force in Scotland and Wales, is purely a response to the structural changes in the UK economy over the last 50 years, particularly the disappearance of the key “big battalions” of organised manual labour, ie, miners, shipbuilders, dockers, steel workers, etc, and the related collapse of Labourite social democracy’s role in maintaining a sense of class solidarity and a hope of social progress based on socialist analysis and class action across the UK. Strip away the quite recent “left shifted rhetoric” of the SNP (always seen as “Tartan Tories” in the 1970’s) and Plaid , and at root you have a politics based on reactionary illusions of a bogus “national interest existing across all classes ” in Wales and Scotland. This has not been the case in most states (with obvious exceptions like Ireland) since the bourgeois nationalist revolutions in places like Italy and Germany in the 18th and early 19th centuries ,and some anti colonial struggles in the 20th). In the UK context Northern Ireland is obviously the “odd man out” in the still unresolved issue of a united Ireland, but I can’t see that the diversion of working class people into the completely dead end campaign for separate states for Scotland and Wales (a complete nonsense in the era of fully globalised international capitalism ), takes the struggle for a socialist society forward one iota.

      Lets try to build a radical socialist party across England , Scotland, and Wales. Globalised capitalism as sure as hell hasn’t a shred of respect or interest in individual “nations” (other than a as way to divide and rule and play off one country and its taxation policies against the others) We should similarly be building on a socialist philosophy and tradition seeking to unite the working class in its struggle against capitalism , not just in the UK, but eventually across our planet.

  16. gerryc says:
    July 18, 2013 at 2:41 pm

    Richard, can you just clarify HOW you are proposing the “nationally elected individual post-holders” will be elected?

    Is it “by the members meeting in the National Conference” as specified for the National committees with specialist roles?

    Thanks, Gerry

    • Richard Murgatroyd says:
      July 18, 2013 at 7:31 pm

      Thanks Gerry – you are right this is in clear contradiction with the basic principle that is crucial to the idea of a collective leadership/NCC elected by OMOV in national elections. So this would have to be changed to bring it into line.

      Chris – I find it very unlikely that the majority of English LU supporters would support the idea of an English only party. In addition to the compelling reasons you yourself put, most LU supporters are – as John P ably explains – internationalists. The idea that English socialists (who happen to agree with Scottish or Welsh nationalism) should simply dismiss the desire of our Scottish comrades to unite in Left UNITY will seem wrong in principle to most. Similarly the idea that members in Scotland and Wales should be deliberately assigned less rights than English members and ‘encouraged’ to work with the SSP or Plaid Cymru (as suggested in Sean’s SSP based constitution 6.1 (b))is not consistent with our belief in basic equal democratic rights. Or ironically enough, the right of self determination.

      The draft proposals put on the top of this page seek to ensure equal rights for all members of LU and to ensure that members in Scotland, Wales (and if there is a demand for it) Northern Ireland are fairly represented on national bodies and still have the freedom to organise in the way that best suits local conditions. This will be true of regional groups in England.

      I guess if the forthcoming referendum in Scotland decides for independence then this would lead to changes in our constitution. Even then, I’d say the need for solidarity between ordinary people in England, Wales, Scotland (and yes, even Northern Ireland) will be as pressing as ever. But it hasn’t happened and and we have to respond to the situation as it actually exists.

      Hoom – I can see your point about the 20 member threshold applying across the board but would be worried that this could undermine local group participation, some of which may be pretty small for some time and could sruggle to get 20 people there. I think we would all agree that local groups are the fundamental base of any bottom up party. But I also agree with your (and Sean’s) points about the need to urgently develop our use of IT. Although its probably too hard for us to get hold of properly now in constitutional terms given the short time frame, we clearly as a party need to get a really good internet forum going.

      Best

      Richard

      • Abu Jamal says:
        July 18, 2013 at 9:04 pm

        Rich,

        Your comment in brackets [and, yes even Northern Ireland]is revealing.
        The overwhelming majority of the working class in Ireland have been engaged with and part of the long running struggle Against British Imperialism for hundreds of years… in fact some of the earliest and most radical political expressions of the working class in England were inspired and often led by Irish people – particularly true of the Chartist movement and the early English Trade Unions. This phenomenon of the influence of Irish radicalism continues to this day and many labour movement activist trace the source of their own radical commitment to socialism to a Irish Ancestry… Engels in 1848 remarked once ‘Give Me 200,000 Irishmen and I can change the World’ – Today via the Good Friday Agreement gradually the Northern Irish Statelet established by threat of force and stabilised by Loyalist Pogroms against Nationalists is moving towards for the first time in its history some sort of functioning democracy. Sinn Fein which is an explicitly Socialist Party has the support of a significant number of working class people both all over Ireland and is active as part of the European United Left/Nordic Green Left which Syriza, Die Linke and the Left Party in France are allined with… To suggest that Left Unity organises in the North of Ireland is a serious misunderstanding of political reality…which I appeal for you to reflect upon. It is almost as if some in this discussion want to find a utopianist unionist socialist solution and impose it upon reality.

        To say ” I find it very unlikely that the majority of English LU supporters would support the idea of an English only party” is simply your perspective on this and also a distortion of the positions [not precisely the same as mine perhaps]of Stephen Hall and Sean Thompson who have participated in this discussion – If anyone in Scotland wants to establish any organisation structure they are free to do the same with Wales – In Ireland the vast bulk of the Working Class has already done this and the organisation they support and vote for in large and increasing numbers is Sinn Fein.

        By Suggesting that a new party of the Left is established based on the English supporters of Left Unity will be a new departure in left politics and by this one simple step empower Scottish and Welsh Socialist to continue the struggle in their own Nations as they see fit.

        It also will represent a clear break from Imperialist Economism that has held back the working class in England particularly by mirroring the Anti Democratic Structure of the British State within our own organisations.

        I will in collaboration with others in LU continue to argue the benefits of Establishing a Constitution of English Republican Socialist Party – I this version of a constitution of a new party of the left wins a majority at the founding conference of Left Unity then I will feel sorry for the Welsh and Scottish Comrades who will have travelled to London and probably wasted their time. I do not expect a single person from Northern Ireland to be at the founding conference and to suggest that we have a constitution that has a provision to accommodate imaginary political forces strike me as rather absurd.

  17. Dave_E says:
    July 18, 2013 at 9:03 pm

    ISSUE OF ROTATION OF NATIONAL POSITIONS:
    Earlier this was raised sas “…with terms of office for executive positions limited to a maximum of 5 years in any 10 year period. A right of recall will also apply ”
    I think the principle of rotation of national positions is very important. Without this there will be a strong tendency for the the bulk of people on the national committee to be there year after year. And each years reinforces their position, as they now have ‘experience’.
    It is healthy to have people who were on a national committee to ‘go back to the rank and file’. Good for the soul. It also enable and challenges a range of others to take these positions up.
    I can only see a strength in adopting this. Although I would change the formulate to 3 years and no return for 2 or 3 years. This would enable a greater flow, enable the organisation to use talent and abilities. A five year gap is long, much longer than a week in politics.

  18. Dave_E says:
    July 18, 2013 at 9:15 pm

    LEFT UNITY AND THE SSP
    Chris C feels that the SSP is a problem and ‘just the same as other groups’. This might be the case, as I do not live in Scotland. I can only say that looking at their material and what appears to be their approach through facebook and articles. Their method and approach appears to mirror what Left Unity is creating.

    It would be rather silly to have a clone organisation with identical or very similar policies, internal method of organisation and orientation to the labour and trade union movement.

    I think I understand that the history of people in Left Unity in Scotland is an anti-SSP, presumably some were in Solidarity via the SWP, and took a certain position when the SWP set up Solidarity with the Socialist Party. But I would hope that bad experience are behind people. Other in Left Unity in Scotland, of course may not have had any of this. But I am sure these people will question the situation, if it arises, which I outlines in my previous paragraph of a near clone organisation.

    Of course the situation may be resolved by comradely talks and discussions between Left Unity people and the SSP. And there are a number of posible outcomes. Indeed if there are no such talks and alienation and ‘otherness’ of ‘them’ continue; then there will be a in-built problem at the start – which will damage the organic heart and functioning of Left Unity in Scotland. A dark spot on the soul which will fester.

    • Chris says:
      July 19, 2013 at 12:34 pm

      Dave E,

      Just to clarify: I think it’s extremely important that we engage and work with members of the SSP, and indeed the SWP, ISG, Socialist Party etc., but the SSP of today is a very different organisation of the SSP of pre-2006.

      I am not aware of any anti-SSP sentiment among Scottish LU supporters and I certainly am keen to work constructively with the SSP and any other Left group in Scotland.

      The issue is not working with SSP but the fact that the SSP is now no longer an alliance of Left groups, but rather a small Left group itself no bigger or more influential than others. I think this is why so many of us up here are surprised that the SSP is being cited as a Left Unity alternative, not because of any anti-SSP feeling.

      The majority of groups involved in the SSP have now left (under some acrimony) and it would be extremely difficult to persuade most of these groups, and their members, to rejoin. As such, the SSP is no longer a viable site for Left unity. But it is essential to engage the SSP with Left Unity.

      Finally, as far as Left Unity being a clone of the SSP: that may have been the case with the Scottish Socialist Alliance and the initial years of the SSP, but it certainly is not the case now. The SSP does not campaign explicitly for Left Unity (evidenced by the complete absence from their website of any mention of the Solidarity split or any call for working with other existing groups) and, most importantly, Left Unity’s policies and positions haven’t actually been decided yet so may end up looking quite different.

      Best wishes,
      Chris

  19. Abu Jamal says:
    July 18, 2013 at 9:15 pm

    Richard and James [the convenors of this commission]
    Maybe it may help clarify this constitutional issue re England Wales Scotland and even Northern Ireland for all participants in the commission to be given a statistical breakdown [anonymised of course] of Where in the UK all of the -9,000 Signatories to Ken Loach’s Appeal for a New Party – Live?
    This would at least give us an indication of the level of support already for a new party in these respective geographical areas.
    Do you think that is will be possible to sort this out?

  20. Dave_E says:
    July 18, 2013 at 9:44 pm

    FURTHER THOUGHTS ON SCOTLAND AND WALES
    My last post was largely some concerns about the approach being taken in relation to the existence of and relationships with the SSP. But I have also noticed in the discussions what must be a problematic issue (however it is finally resolved).

    On the one hand Scotland and Wales is treated in exactly the same way as one of the English regions. The implication ‘they are only regions’ of the UK. This I feel has some inherent problems. You can mouth about ‘right of self determination’ etc., but in practice the practice is an assumption of ‘just a region’.

    On the other hand the arguments about the ‘right’ to set up Left Unity in Scotland is the same argument to say it should be set up in Greece or France. What is the difference in the logic (unless you demote Scotland to a region). Are people entitled to set up in Greece and run candidates against SYRIZA. I’m being silly I know. But I am trying to take the arguments present above to their logical conclusion. I think this whole area needs to be thought through far more carefully.

    • Abu Jamal says:
      July 19, 2013 at 9:48 am

      Dave E – I concur ‘this whole area needs to be thought through far more carefully’ and I agree that the Draft Constitution drawn up [after considerable effort] by the Convenors of the Commission [Rich and James] does treat Wales, Scotland and NI in exactly the same way as English Regions which is problematic.
      The Draft Constitution suggested by Sean T Does treat Wales and Scotland as Nations and does not include Northern Ireland in the new Constitution of LU. This is why I have expressed my support for this approach.

      In essence Rich and James Draft is based upon the constitution of the Green Party of England and Wales with Scotland and Northern Ireland awkwardly bolted on.
      In essence Sean T’s Draft constitution is based upon the old constitution of the Scottish Socialist Party with a more realistic approach to how we posed organising in Wales and Scotland.

      The Green Party in Wales is a tiny rump with only about 300 members compared to over 11,500 in England… The Greens in Wales are deeply divided and on the verge of a split between a working class and explicitly socialist wing and a more affluent group of would be careerist politicians. Interestingly the two factions in the Welsh Greens have leading figures who are of Working Class Irish extraction and Middle Class English extraction. Many people in the Green Party of England and Wales have expressed the view that the time is coming for a formal separation of the Welsh and English parties similar to the process that occurred a long time ago in led by Scottish Greens.
      In the recent past the weakness of some of the Green Parties Constitution has been exposed by the expulsions of socialists from the Party via a basically secret process that represents a scandal for the Greens [so the constitutional issues that have been dealt with and are continuing to be an issue in the Green Party should inform any discussion if we are considering adopting a constitution which is based on the Green Party’s]

      The tragic history of the SSP and how its huge potential evaporated so rapidly should also inform the discussion if we are planning to adopt a constitution based on the Scottish Socialist Parties Constitution..

      But both in the GP and the SSP the internal faction struggles and political errors may have been in some measure facilitated by the constitution but in the large part organisations go down the pan because of issues of abuse of power within the organisation by individuals or cliques that seek to dominate in someway and often we see the feature of multiple cliques jostling for position in a way that keeps most of the ordinary membership in the dark.. because there is not a genuinely open and transparent and vibrant internal democracy. In our new party We can choose a constitution that looks ace on paper but in the long run the only hope of success and growth is if we prevent hidden and distorted internal struggles for power that will have there basis somewhere not simply in human psychological processes but in POLITICAL differences. It is only by addressing the Politics that we get to the heart of differences.

      Politically – I support Sean T’s Draft Constitution and I feel that in affect and effect the new party we are building will be in Essence a party based in England – Politically – I feel that this is long overdue and that the working class and the oppressed in England have for long been infantilised by being prisoners of the Union. If we really do prefer becoming the “UKIP of the Left” then I am afraid we will end up being humiliated just a Nigel Farage was when he took a trip up North to Scotland.. and despite the fact UK has UK in its Name I do note that Nigel Farage has not even attempted a trip over the water to Belfast.
      So to recap. I disagree with Rich and James Draft Constitution and feel Sean T’s rejigging of the old Constitution of the Scottish Socialist Party [which reflect the optimism and hope of the early days of the SSP] should be the basis for our discussions.
      Sean T. has over 5 Decades of political experience including being involved centrally in Black Dwarf [The Paper of the 1968 Revolt] up to experience in the Green Party as a member of the Party Standing Orders Committee – I feel that when it comes to such detailed and intricate work as we are being to engage in now then – Sean’s wealth of knowledge and experience should be respected and all Internal Democracy and Constitution Commission members take onboard some of the wise old mans words.

  21. FatOldSon says:
    July 19, 2013 at 3:37 am

    I think we are becoming bogged down in the LU Scotland and SSP idea. The first point to note is that there is no other ‘active’ Left Unity group in Scotland. There are a few of us who are trying to get other groups started but, it is very difficult. In the way the idea of us joining the SSP was first mooted, it was rejected out of hand. However, we would be more than happy to have any member of the SSP to join our group who a) signs the pledge and b) agrees to work within the constitution & rules of Left Unity (from November, hopefully!). We have a number of individuals from across the spectrum, people who have been involved in politics for 50 years and people who have not yet had 50 days experience of being a party member, but all are as keen as possible to put together a new UK party. That is the key, we are not looking inwards to the narrow “Scottish” dimension, but out towards the rest of Europe. My own document on the governance of Scotland would hope to be able to take that position either from Scotland as a part of the UK or as an independent country. As far as I can see the SSP (by its very name) is specifically Scottish and that is just not the road we are on.

    As for Regions? We do not need to have regions, we can use any of half a dozen other terms if you like, but the structures are already set. It would be a lovely idea to set our own boundaries, but the political map has already been drawn. We just need a structure that fits with a) the present boundaries as set down by the boundaries commission and b) the political structures within that. For example, their are 21 wards within the city of Glasgow, and there are 21 constituencies for the main political parties, so it would mean that we need to look at the opportunity to split the Glasgow Left Unity Group into 21 constituency groups to build an opposition – and yes we are looking at that right now!

    So, lets not get bogged down in things that we would better leave to our members, who will make the final decision anyway! All we need is a skeleton to put out to the members. Please don’t let us think that somehow we are the brains trust here! Our members will soon point out the bits that work & the bits that don’t. Simply put, I think we can put something together from the draft proposals at the top of this thread, and possibly take one or two bits from the SSP document to tighten things up. Job done, what’s next!

    Joe Barr.

    • SeanT says:
      July 19, 2013 at 10:35 am

      Since I started this debate with my objections to the treatment of Scotland, Wales and Ireland as regions on the same basis as the English regions, I apologise if it has led us into a bit of a blind alley. As ever in these sorts of discussions Joe, I suspect that we all more or less agree on more or less everything and that we, on occasions, hear what we think people have said rather than what they meant to say.

      My point of objection to Richard’s original formulations was that Scotland and Wales are not simply ‘English regions with funny accents’ but separate nations and the political context is very different from England. My formulation was not intended to suggest that LU members and supporters in those two countries should be required to join the SSP or Plaid (and for what its worth, I think that sadly the SSP is a busted flush and I have comrades in Wales who have a range of views about Plaid), but to recognise that socialists in England should recognise that our members and supporters in each nation are in the best position to come to a view on how LU should organise – and with whom it should work with – in their countries.

      Now, I think that the clause 6.1(b) in my draft expresses that position, however, I would be perfectly happy with a different form of words that says the same thing more clearly. In fact, I’ll try to come up with something myself.

      • Abu Jamal says:
        July 19, 2013 at 10:53 am

        Dave E – I concur about not presuming anything.
        What would be useful although may make the discussion more clumbersome would be if there were more voices participating … so earlier I contacted a few Left Unity Facebook groups and pages to encourage people to Register Log in and participate in the work of the Commission.

        Sean T – I concur clause 6.1(b) of your proposed Draft constitution is the focus of much of the discussion and if people have alternative wordings or formulations then they can propose them.

    • Richard Murgatroyd says:
      July 19, 2013 at 11:41 am

      Hi all

      1. Elected representatives

      Thanks to John P.’s constructive suggestion regarding a code of conduct is good and can be directly inserted as a new sub-clause. The only really problematic issue for me would be how much freedom locally elected councillors etc should have as we are committed to being a bottom-up, pluralistic party. Maybe we should assume that there are certain ‘red-line’ issues that they would be expected to abide by. These could be clearly identified when policy is democratically agreed eg no to coalitions with reactionary parties and voting for cuts in services etc

      EXCUSE THE CAPS BUT I WOULD LIKE TO EMPHASISE HOW WELCOME CONCRETE SUGGESTIONS, AMENDMENTS, IDENTIFICATION OF SPECIFIC PROBLEMS AND CONTRADICTIONS ARE. When we finally start going through all the verbiage and extended polemics to draft the new constitution I suspect the words that speak the loudest will be those that actually proposed something concrete. Speaking of which…

      2. Rotation of positions

      Thanks Dave for this positive and practical suggestion to amend the draft proposals that was supported by a reasoned and brief rationale. It was helpful and personally I agree with you. Three years is indeed sufficient for office and I’d opt for the shorter two year break. Anyone else got any thoughts on this?

      3. Scotland, Wales, regions etc

      Regarding this part of the discussion it seems that we have reached an impasse:

      On the one hand the Scottish supporters of LU want to create a new party of the Radical Left and not join the SSP or any other existing left party. They therefore expect to be included in the constitution and have the same rights as anyone else. Some English supporters of LU agree with them and reject as nationalistic and undemocratic the proposal from Sean’s/SSP constitution that LU supporters ‘will work in, or in partnership with, left organisations in those countries with which the party has fraternal relations’. They argue that this is also patronising – as Joe put it ‘Here’s a pat on the head and a wee sweetie, now off you go and do your own “Scottish” thing, We’ve got much more important “English” stuff to think about.’

      On the other hand some English supporters of LU believe that these Scottish members are wrong (whether because they, the English members that is, are ideologically committed to elements of nationalist ideas or they like what they see of the SSP from the internet etc). They think therefore LU should be an English only organisation and that the constitution should be framed in such a way as to prevent LU supporters in Scotland and Wales from having the same membership rights and freedom to organise on the same terms as English members in order to encourage/instruct them to work/join with groups in Scotland and Wales that they personally approve of. The two mentioned so far have been SSP and PC. I thought Mark summed the implications of this position up well when he said:

      “if this version of a constitution of a new party of the left wins a majority at the founding conference of Left Unity then I will feel sorry for the Welsh and Scottish Comrades who will have travelled to London and probably wasted their time.”

      So where to go from here? Whatever your view of this I think we can all agree that these positions are mutually incompatible.

      Therefore I think Joe Barr is right and there is a danger we could fall into black-hole. If there is a consensus, as Joe put it, to “put something together from the draft proposals at the top of this thread, and possibly take one or two bits from the SSP document to tighten things up” then the English members who support Welsh and Scottish nationalist ideas and organisations could propose an amendment at the conference along the lines of Sean’s/SSP proposals and the issue debated, voted on etc?

      Best

      Rich

    • Abu Jamal says:
      July 19, 2013 at 12:06 pm

      Hi Joe,
      I missed some comments you made earlier on in the thread
      “Hello Mark, or do you prefer the whole Mark Anthony thing, or do you want us to call you Abu? I’m happy to call you whatever you prefer…”

      the reason I am posting in this commission as ‘Abu Jamal’ is related to a technical issue to do with the WordPress portal ‘Mark Anthony France’ was not available. So I Registered with WordPress under my Islamic name ‘Abu Jamal’
      Which I have previously used primarily on left discussion forums like ‘Socialist Unity’
      I am Happy for comrades to call me whatever they feel is appropriate Mark or Abu is fine…
      As a personal issue of Taste I do like the whole ‘Mark Anthony’ although my sister ‘Cleopatra’ prefers to call herself ‘Shell’… each to their own.
      So Joe [if you prefer that thing to FatOld] :) to the more substantive question you raised ie
      ” Do you really beleive that? You see it reads to me like; ‘Here’s a pat on the head and a wee sweetie, now off you go and do your own “Scottish” thing, we’ve got much more important “English” stuff to think about.’”

      Yes I do really believe that Scottish comrades should act in Scotland and form a Scottish organisation based upon the LU initiative.
      It is not a question of believing that stuff in England is more ‘important’. However, the political weakness and cultural backwardness of much of the Working Class in England has been so pronounced for so long that we have been dependent for much of our leadership in the Labour Movement upon Scots… In fact the English Ruling Class is so lazy and thick that they too prefer to let the far more clever Scots organise the Politics of the British State… Hence the noticeable and disproportionate influence of Scots within the Tory Party Lib Dems and Labour.
      I would argue the wonderful opportunity that the Establishment of an essentially English based new part of the Left would be to focus on how to turn around and reverse the political immaturity and backwardness of the working class in England… For example a ‘National’ [UK wide] Leadership Body having to address the fundamentally different strategic and tactical questions facing the working class in Scotland and Wales and at the same time attempting to develop the strategy and tactic to pursue in England would be a difficult task to complete – plus there will be the inevitable clashes of perspective based upon comrade travelling hundreds of miles from Glasgow to listen pathetic debates about what’s happening in the working class in Tory/UKIP dominated Constituencies in lets say Worcestershire… that has little or no relevance to comrade work in Strathclyde or for that matter. I was on an elected body of a new party that ended up discussing how to deal with Plaid in Ceredigion – I would not be in a position to contribute and genuinely would prefer the comrades in Wales to sort it out themselves…
      My position is not intended to come across as arrogant and patronising and apologies if that is your perception…. I simple believe that a new party of the working class in England has tremendous potential and can engage and challenge some of the more reactionary emerging forms of ‘Englishness’ and ‘English’ identiy like the EDL – by promoting the long buried from history radical anti imperialist and socialist traditions that have existed in England from the Diggers through the Chartists and Tolpuddle up to the present day. This tradition is hidden and is of course intimately connected with the radical traditions of Scotland Ireland and Wales…. What we could achieve is to bring this hidden English Tradition to life and help awake the Lions from their slumber.

  22. Dave_E says:
    July 19, 2013 at 9:40 am

    Well I don’t think the ‘job is done’ at all. This approach merely buries key discussions on the basis of pre set assumptions. Clearly Joe B has a concept of a political party which is UK based. But this is a aprior assumption about the structure of LU. There is a discussion to be had about this and the decision does not only lay in Scotland and Wales. English based people might not want to ‘presume’ upon the people of Scotland and Wales that they should effectively undertake political activity in those countries by a majoritarian English party. There again, LU might make the decision that it does want to do this. The dicussion has not been had.
    It is THEREFORE critical that the structures proposed by this forum, does not presume and make the assumption about this IMPORTANT political discussion and decision.

  23. Abu Jamal says:
    July 19, 2013 at 11:00 am

    On a slightly humorous note comrade commissioners! – The 488th post on the thread below Ken’s Appeal which is pinned to the top of the Left Unity Website Home page someone called Mark has suggest another name for our new party.

    “Mark

    July 18, 2013 at 3:02 am

    On suggesting a name for a new party of the Left, in addition to ‘United People’s Party or ‘UP’ for short, a name like ‘UP Front’ may be more appropriate. UP Front conjures up the notion of being ahead of everybody else, transcending left and right politics and focusing on the core values that really matter to people without even mentioning socialism. UP Front is a deliberately emotive name; it engenderes a disposition of confrontation, boldness and courage among those fighting for it’s cause. It’s a name that would, I’m sure, appeal to the public and inspire others to join the fight for liberty against social injustice.”

  24. Mike Scott says:
    July 19, 2013 at 12:58 pm

    As requested, here are some proposed amendments to the original draft, to be inserted as appropriate:

    Subscriptions: The level of subscriptions will be based on three principles:
    1. No-one will be excluded through lack of money.
    2. Subscriptions will be fair and equitable.
    3. Subscriptions will be set at a level that will enable all members to participate in activities.
    4. The figures set will enable the national organisation to carry out its functions efficiently, as determined by the National Conference.
    Income will be divided equally between the national organisation and local/regional activities. This will enable groups to fund all legitimate expenses, including travelling expenses, publicity, etc.
    The initial rate of subscriptions will be as follows:
    UNWAGED: £1 per year
    LOW WAGED: £1 per month
    STANDARD RATE: £2 per month
    HIGH WAGED: £5 per month

    Revisiting 4.f.iv of the original draft, it’s difficult to pick a figure that would definitely work in terms of Conference attendance, so I think the alternatives are to go for 1,000 and keep your fingers crossed that they don’t all turn up, or go for a delegate structure from the start. The former “feels” better, but the latter is more practical!

    Finally, I really must make the point about internet access again: it’s no good saying most young people have access so that’s OK. A significant proportion of our prospective membership don’t have access and aren’t computer literate and there is no justification for excluding them from membership. A recent survey of one of the biggest trade union branches in the country (UNISON Nottinghamshire County) indicated that only about 50% of members could be reached by email, though more could be contacted via texts.
    As we grow, the proportion of members without access will increase steadily and we’re just going to have to deal with it!

    Finally, all I’m going to say about the English/British debate is that if we are going to be successful, we have to deal with the world as it is, not as we would wish it to be – and that includes listening to what supporters tell us.

    Cheers, Mike

    • Abu Jamal says:
      July 19, 2013 at 3:09 pm

      I agree with Mike’s proposals about subscription structure but with the proviso that I would like it to be incorporated into as an amendment into the Draft constitution proposed by Sean T.
      We can learn a lot from surveys like that conducted by UNISON in Nottinghamshire County… and we could probably learn quiet a bit of information relevant this commissions discussion on the Constitution if we could access the data about the geographical distribution of current signatories to Ken Loach’s appeal…
      On the question of new technology, internet, e-mail, mobile technology, social media…. as ever we are faced with a process of combined and uneven development… millions of relatively impoverished young people have intermittent access to smart phone technology that appears or disappears with the ebb and flow of fluctuating incomes and often chaotic lifestyles…so for instance during the 2011 Riots – it is true that Blackberry BBM messenger did play a role in some areas in coordinating this elemental explosion of young proletarian/lumpen rebellion…
      Also it is worth noting that many, many people may have ‘facebook’ accounts that they frequently access but these same individuals may not use conventional e-mail accounts and may not know how to open an ‘attachemnt’ or ‘click on a link’ … conversely there are many individuals who are very well versed in these technologies and actively engaged in their daily use as campaigning tools and propaganda vehicles… Our New Party of the Left will have to confront this situation and interestingly enough one of the really important things about face to face meetings in the real world is that it is only in these environments that it is possible to exchange the skills and tools that then can empower comrades to use social media and the internet educate and organise their own work and pass on important information.
      Our new party should seek to investigate the pool of talent that already exists and establish local brainstorming sessions to share ideas and skills… Members without access or the confidence to use information technology need to feel they are valued and be empowered to access the technology and learn the skills to participate.
      One of the realities that I have confronted locally in Worcestershire is that although LU supporters exist and identify with the project [although I still have no access to any list of Ken Loach signatories] and we have various online communications… We have not yet even after several months actually had a meeting in the real world. The last local ‘event’ built via facebook was supporting a Unite Community Members ‘Save the NHS’ stall followed by a local meeting of Left Unity. Several people ‘committed’ in virtual reality to participation via a click of the mouse or equivalent. But in the real world only one Left Unity supporter turned up.
      In this context – despite the 9,000 signatories and the virtual existence of a 100 local groups… and a certain ephemeral buzz about the project… how many people are actually going to become ‘founding members’ ??
      Obviously, things can rapidly change between now and Novemeber especially as the seismic changes in the relationship between the TU’s and the Labour Party filter through and have their effects… and if things go well we could be looking at a monster mobilisation of the 29th September in Manchester to Save the NHS and mash up the Tory Conference….

      I understand from a [very brief facebook message] conversation with Phil Hearse that the venue for the founding conference holds 750people… If we are looking at a delegate structure from functioning local groups then we need to get as many of these groups up and running in the real world asap….
      At 3 delegates per local group we are talking 300 odd people with voting rights and hopefully the venue can be filled with many more participants.
      The potential of the tight timescale and the very embryonic stage of development threatens that the whole initiative will be prone to misunderstanding and lack of clarity…
      This is why the preparatory work we are doing in the Internal Democracy and Constitutional Commission is of real value.
      By thrashing things out here we can prevent a lot of mess occurring at a founding conference.
      Mike says ‘if we are going to be successful, we have to deal with the world as it is, not as we would wish it to be – and that includes listening to what our supporters tell us.’ – Despite the inherent vagueness of this formulation I absolutely agree…. But we do need to spit out what concretely we mean in these discussion.. ie… what we feel/understand reality to be and what precisely our supporters are telling us.

      So Basically at the moment we have two different Draft constitutions that do appear to reflect two different political conceptions of how a new party of the working class should operate.

      what next?

    • Hoom says:
      July 19, 2013 at 4:55 pm

      I don’t think anyone is suggesting that we write off people without internet access. The question is what emphasis to put on online democratic decision making which is subtly different. Because suggesting we “deal with it” isn’t that concrete a proposal. What, specifically, are you proposing as an alternative? I’m perfectly willing to believe that there’s a different way of doing this, that’s less likely to exclude people. I just can’t think of one.

      Did the Unison survey ask why people weren’t using the internet? I think that’s an important question.

      To use the government statistics on this (http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/rdit2/internet-access—households-and-individuals/2012/stb-internet-access–households-and-individuals–2012.html), in 2012 80% of households had internet. Of those that didn’t a bit over half (54%) said they didn’t feel they needed one. I haven’t looked at these statistics closely so I don’t know how reliable the methodology is, but they’re a useful starting point.

      So, 1/5 of the population currently doesn’t have internet access. Half of those people are choosing not to have them. Of the remaining respondents, there is a definite link to poverty and low wages as far as lack of internet access goes. (Combining the numbers for equipment and access costs, that’s 29%). We can’t ignore that.

      Obviously, 1/5 of the population is a significant minority and their needs can’t be ignored by LU. We definitely need an alternative to the internet in place for those who need or want one. (Postal voting seems an obvious possibility).

      However, we still shouldn’t act as if this is a majority. We’re still talking about something used by 80% of the population and we need to take that into account when we look at this. Or, as you put it, we should deal with the world that is.

  25. Richard Murgatroyd says:
    July 19, 2013 at 2:27 pm

    WALES AND SCOTLAND

    Hi all – as away of dealing with the current blockage I would like to suggest the following amendment to the draft on the top of this section:

    RATIONALE

    1. Sean and others point about the need to differentiate and extend the rights of Scottish and Welsh parts of LU due to their national character is sound. The amended wording seeks to clarify this and in particular state that they can organise differently as as they see fit within the wider constitution of LU
    2. Welsh and Scottish members will still be properly represented on all the decision making bodies, especially the National Collective Council. Similarly, Scottish individual members can stand for national positions, form and join political platforms or sections based on identity in the normal way etc. In short, equal rights
    3. As there is provision in the draft above for national conferences and meetings to be held in geographically convenient locations and Mike has come up with a good formula to address travel expenses hopefully members in Wales and Scotland, they will be able to participate fully.
    4. There seems no appetite among everyone to include Northern Ireland – I am not aware of a massive groundswell of support for LU there so the issue isn’t pressing. It was included to be consistent. So I propose we delete all references to Northern Ireland throughout the document other than here

    If this amendment (or something like it) is acceptable it will have knock on effects throughout the rest of the document (hence the XXXX). Rather than do them now I propose we leave that until we get to the making a second draft.

    One last point though – these amendments are to the draft presented by James and myself not Sean’s/SSP constitution. Can I ask you Sean, how committed are you to the amended SSP version you put forward or do you think you could work with the other proposed draft, subject to the amendments that have already come up on this thread and additional ones you may wish to propose? For example ours proposes quite a different form of leadership body, representation at national conference etc – something that hasn’t really been fully discussed yet.

    I ask because it would be good if we can bring these as close to each other, even if in the end we have to present two alternative constitutions to be voted on in November?

    Anyway here goes…

    PROPOSED AMENDMENT

    e) English Regional, Scottish and Welsh structures

    i. National committees will be created for Scotland and Wales, comprised of elected representatives of the local groups

    ii. In recognition of the different political contexts and to better deal with issues specific to these countries members/local groups have the right to draw up their own constitutional rules and organisational structures, with the proviso that they do not fundamentally contradict the principles set out in 4 (a) of the constitution or the Code of Conduct for elected representatives set out in XXXX.

    iii. In England, regional committees of representatives from local groups will be organised for all the regions identified in g. V below. Each local group will be entitled to send two delegates with speaking and voting rights and as many observers as wish to come.

    iv. The role of English regional, Welsh and Scottish committees will be to coordinate work between local groups as they see fit, hold representatives elected on the NCC to account and develop political strategies and tactics best suited to their regions or nations

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

    MIKE’S POINT ABOUT THE INTERNET

    You are of course right Mike that there is a genuine issue here. Mike (and everybody) please could you look again at the proposals put forward by John P and others on this thread and comment on a) whether you think we should simply put the question of direct democracy via the net to one side and (b) specific rules and provisions we could build into the constitution to minimise the danger of exclusion

    Personally, just to put my tuppence worth in, I think we do need to say something in the constitution as many LU supporters will want to vote and debate on-line and this demand will not go away. But how is another matter?

    Best

    Richard

    • Mike Scott says:
      July 19, 2013 at 4:52 pm

      I don’t want to give the impression that I’m against using the internet, or any other electronic medium – what I’m looking for is a way of ensuring that those who do aren’t getting any sort of advantage by doing so. Perhaps the simplest thing would be for those who can use it to do so, but to make it clear that those who can’t will be able to receive/send info by text, phone or on paper, as appropriate. We should produce paper as well as electronic Membership Application forms and ask on them what is the preferred method of contact – while encouraging people to give us their email addresses if at all possible.

      In general, I would expect the vast majority if not all decisions to be made by delegates at National Conferences.

      Cheers, Mike

      • Hoom says:
        July 19, 2013 at 7:17 pm

        Thanks for the answer. I can’t see how the National Conferences solution wouldn’t exclude way more people then online voting.

        There’s the obvious question of the cost of getting to conferences. Even if we can resolve that (possibly by paying expenses, if LU can afford that), there’s questions of time commitments. Unless we can provide full childcare, that’s likely to exclude at least some parents. And it will almost certainly exclude anybody who works weekends (which is near everyone in retail currently).

        In other words, not only do I think this would run a big risk of falling into giving people an advantage, I actually think that the people who would benefit from this are a much smaller group of people then those online.

    • Dave_E says:
      July 20, 2013 at 5:41 pm

      Although this is an improvement. It is still projecting an all UK party. Since opinion is divided on this issue. The constitutional draft should present to EQUAL alternatives (not a ‘minority’) alternative. One that proposes an all UK party, one that proposes an English only party and one for and English and Wales party. To do otherwise would ‘set the agenda’ in favour of one POLITICAL approach rather than another – when less than a dozen people have contributed to the discussion. And this would not be a very satisfactory situation.

  26. Richard Murgatroyd says:
    July 19, 2013 at 3:09 pm

    Jimmy Roberts of Merseyside LU has asked us to post this contribution to the debate for him – Richard (co-convenor)

    I am in favour of establishing a new avowedly Socialist Party, which
    allows other Socialist organisations and Trade Unions to affiliate and
    operate within it providing its members pay a full membership fee like
    everyone else, and accept the will of the majority as expressed at an
    Annual National Conference.
    There should be a Branch structure operating at grass roots level. A
    minimum of 20 paid-up members would be required for Branch status to be
    granted to avoid the “rotten boroughs” syndrome.
    There should be City-wide and Regional Councils whose members will be
    elected annually by the areas they cover.
    All full time officials for the new organisation must be elected every two
    years, and, no official can serve longer than 10 years. Power corrupts.
    Absolute power corrupts absolutely. History teaches that this maxim
    applies to many so-called Socialist and Revolutionary Parties, as well as
    to the Parties of Reaction and Counter-Revolution. There should also be
    inbuilt, constitutional powers to recall any Party Official and/or Leader
    on the request of a substantial body of Party members, i.e., say 500
    members, and to deselect that Official and/or Party Leader upon a vote at
    Annual National Conference.
    All Party Leaders, local and national, should be elected annually and
    likewise subject to recall.
    No full time Official and/or Party Leader should receive more than the
    average skilled workers wage as determined by a Sub-Committee of the
    elected National Executive Committee, and ratified by that NEC and the
    Annual National Conference.
    There should be no place, or pelf, for careerists, gold-diggers, and power
    maniacs in our new Socialist Party, which is a vehicle for achieving a
    socialist transformation of society, and not a posh Cadillac for the
    venal, the acquisitive, and the celebrity seeker.
    Jimmy Roberts.
    Blacklisted Socialist and former NUJ and NUT activist.
    Merseyside Left Unity.

  27. John Penney says:
    July 19, 2013 at 4:46 pm

    I have very serious doubts about the direction this discussion is taking. The problem with the tiny number of contributors to this Commission’s work is that its discussions are being skewed by those few contributors promoting the “LU should only be an English Party” line. This an extreme accommodation to the ideological influence of the petty nationalism of the SNP and Plaid. It has no historical roots in the UK socialist tradition.

    For heavens sake, there are many more people of Scottish origin living in England today than in Scotland. Left Unity needs to build a coherent radical Left party right across England, Scotland , and Wales, not hobble ourselves with profoundly divisive concessions to the petty nationalist fantasies of the nationalists, as we hopefully help to build a fightback to a UK-wide Austerity Offensive. To suggest that there is any similarity with Left Unity seeking to build in Scotland and Wales with LU trying to establish a party base in GREECE ! is to create a polemical “Straw Man” of grotesque proportions ! The socialist/labour movement struggle for well over two hundred years now has been carried out on a united England/Wales/Scotland basis. The recent significant “devolutionary” changes in Wales and Scotland change the detail of the campaigns and many of the political structures in which socialists in Scotland and Wales operate. They do not change the fundamental need to oppose capitalism and the Austerity Offensive in as “joined up” and united a way we can. Only a radical socialist party based on a recognition of the unity of working class interests across this island will have any credibility.

    Richard,you have laboured heroically to try and find a way to “square the political circle” with the actually completely incompatible positions of us who are socialist internationalists and the “separate nations” theorists promoting ever smaller “national” units as the basis for working class political organisation facing globalised monopoly capitalism.

    The “National Committees” for Wales and Scotland in e)I look suspiciously like the English “regional Committees”. And quite rightly so ! The functions are the same – to introduce relevant adaptations in Left Unity operational practice in different areas, taking account of differing political structures and campaigns and political/economic issues.

    I think there is a potential problem with e ii) though , as it stands , heroic as it is in trying to sort this issue out amicably, ie

    “ii. In recognition of the different political contexts and to better deal with issues specific to these countries members/local groups have the right to draw up their own constitutional rules and organisational structures, with the proviso that they do not fundamentally contradict the principles set out in 4 (a) of the constitution or the Code of Conduct for elected representatives set out in XXXX. ”

    I’m afraid that as proposed this is an open invitation for a rapid shambolic divergence between the key principles and policies pursued by Left Unity in Wales, Scotland, and Wales . eg, as a crude example, A “No cuts which hurt working people” core principle governing the decisions of local Left Unity Councillors could very quickly be “made more flexible” in Wales or Scotland , with all sorts of excuses based on versions of “we’re all in it together as an oppressed nation – so we have to collaborate with the cuts in the national interest”, nationalist arguments.

    I would therefore rewrite e) ii, to say

    ” All Left Unity Members , and regional and national sections, must adhere in all situations to the 10 core political principles of Left Unity, as agreed and confirmed each year at its All UK Annual Conference , and its Code of Conduct for elected representatives. In recognition of the different political contexts and to better deal with issues specific to the national and regional units of the UK, subject to approval by National Conference of the modifications, National and regional sections have the right to draw up and operate modified constitutional rules and organisational structures best suited to local circumstances – whilst safeguarding the integrity of Left Unity as single political party ,subject to the overall will of its individual members under OMOV democracy .”

    • SeanT says:
      July 20, 2013 at 12:57 pm

      I’m afraid that it was I who set this hare running, so I’d like to clarify what my concerns with Richard’s original formulation is/was, because I think that there is, as ever, a danger of us seeing disagreements where there are simply differences of interpretation or emphasis.

      I’m not suggesting that our party should be an exclusively English organisation – although I’m completely opposed to it being UK wide, i.e I’m opposed to us attempting to organise in the North of Ireland. The LU project has members in Scotland and Wales and they should be able to organise themselves, and be represented in the new party, on exactly the same basis as everyone else.

      What I object to is Wales and Scotland being seen merely as ‘regions’ in the same sense as the English regions; they are separate nations with separate political structures (and in the case of Scotland it might conceivably be another state before too long). Socialists in both countries are working in a separate political context which includes having to relate to other indigenous forces in on the left. I am suggesting that the best people to determine how those relationships should be developed are the comrades in those countries- in the context, of course, of our desire to find ways, wherever possible, of uniting rather than further dividing the left.

      • Dave_E says:
        July 20, 2013 at 3:25 pm

        John argues that “discussions are being skewed by those few contributors promoting the “LU should only be an English Party” line. But a reading of the original proposals and the discussion list as a whole, a reasonable person would draw the opposite conclusion. Rather that John’s advocacy of the ‘State of the United Kingdom’, skewed the discussion and was in extreme danger of ‘setting the agenda’. But John’s suggestion in the face of this evidence, reflects his rhetorical approach.
        Precisely by inserting into the discussion that the assumption of an ‘All United Kingdom’ Party was problematic, has redressed the balance.
        John’s arguments, as I said are largely rhetorical, let’s look at some of them:
        [1] He states “For heavens sake, there are many more people of Scottish origin living in England today than in Scotland.” We have to ask, does this have any relevance for the people living in Scotland (or indeed Wales)? Or the question of separate governance in Scotland – none that has been argued by John. There are also 2 million Brits living in Spain, and quiet a lot of Polish people in England – and we could go on.
        [2] John continues: ” Left Unity needs to build a coherent radical Left party right across England, Scotland , and Wales, not hobble ourselves with profoundly divisive concessions to the petty nationalist fantasies of the nationalists, as we hopefully help to build a fight back to a UK-wide Austerity Offensive.” Note here that John’s approach is revealed by the use of the term “petty nationalist fantasies”. He nearly said ‘petty bourgeois’ but restrained himself from this. John needs to read more about the character and nature of nationalism and see that there are different types in a range of historical periods and that nationalism takes on many colourations. Clearly from his statement above John has a very specific and hostile view of nationalism, per say. But should this view shape and colour the political trajectory of Left Unity?
        [3] John then makes reference to my quip about SIRAS, to quote: “To suggest that there is any similarity with Left Unity seeking to build in Scotland and Wales with LU trying to establish a party base in GREECE ! is to create a polemical “Straw Man” of grotesque proportions!” Actually I said myself I was being silly. But I also said that this was the ‘logic’ of the situation. Replying that it is ‘grotesque proportions’, actually DOES NOT ANSWER THE QUESTION, it is mere rhetoric.
        [4] John next justification for his ideas is, to quote: “The socialist/labour movement struggle for well over two hundred years now has been carried out on a united England/Wales/Scotland basis.” I find a recourse to history as the reason for continuing the status quo somewhat strange. The same argument can be made for continuing the monarchy (been around for over 900 years), or indeed the continued support of the Labour Party in Scotland – as it has had the majority support of the working class for the last 80 years (that is ‘majority’ support, not the historical existence of the labour party itself). Again it is mere rhetoric. Given, for example, that we have a Scottish TUC, the situation is not as simply presented.
        Next we are told ” Richard, you have laboured heroically to try and find a way to “square the political circle” with the actually completely incompatible positions of us who are socialist internationalists and the “separate nations” theorists promoting ever smaller “national” units as the basis for working class political organisation facing globalise monopoly capitalism.”
        Note how sympathy is given to Richard before the rather dogmatic rhetoric kicks in again. John’s views are ‘socialist internationalist’, other the mere scum of ‘separate nation theorist’. We according to John that is. But of course no evidence to illustrate his very particular point of view. Actually, I thought the world was full of nations and this was an empirical reality. What socialist want to do is unite nations together in a collective, not deny that they exist, nor attempt to obliterate them.
        I could go on, but John posting gets worse, quote: ” I’m afraid that as proposed this is an open invitation for a rapid shambolic divergence between the key principles and policies pursued by Left Unity in Wales, Scotland, and Wales” Rapid shambolic divergence indeed. What we need is an open and evidence based discussion, not this rhetoric.

    • Dave_E says:
      July 20, 2013 at 2:15 pm

      I think John is demonstrating, in the use of his ‘fundamentalist’ language a problem. He is clearly a strident supporter of the United Kingdom. But I don’t equate this with internationalism – in this case an unfortuntate abuse of the term.

      • John Penney says:
        July 21, 2013 at 8:54 pm

        I’ll try to explain this simply. Because for radical socialists the issue really should be very easy to understand. The modern nation state is an ever more irrelevant socio-political formation in the face of globalised capitalism. No single government , certainly not the UK one, is powerful enough to stand up to the pretty much uncontrollable supra national entities of the surprisingly tiny number of interconnected globalised conglomerated Big Corporations who control most of the world’s business activity – not in even getting them to pay taxes, certainly not in getting them to stay or locate in any particular state, or pursue socially responsible business practices..

        To organise politically to stand up to the globally footloose power of international Capital the working class and its political organisations need to be organised on as large a scale as is possible. Fortunately British capitalism has already, via a very brutal historical process of course, created a single political entity within these islands – which has also served as the geographical base for most working class self-organisation for a very, very long time.

        To tailor our new party of the Left to the current undoubtedly electorally successful, but nevertheless sentimental, unrealistic , economically naïve, myth-based, petty nationalism, driven by the SNP and Plaid, by limiting its scope to England would be to hobble our new party’s potential to help organise the entire working class of this island , as it faces a united Austerity Offensive not only affecting the whole of the UK, but Europe and most of the world too.

        If such a thing were possible I would support a project for an All European Radical Left Party. That is not on the cards, but eventually an alliance of like-minded European radical Left Parties must be an aim. Today though we, as socialists, and internationalists, don’t have to settle for an England-only party – the structures, traditions, completely intermixed populations of Scots/Welsh/English origins, and indeed the core of real Scottish and Welsh LU MEMBERS, already exist ,to pursue a party with English/Welsh/Scottish scope.

        Why would we choose to think smaller – and not seek operational unity with like-minded socialists across this small island ? Even if Scotland were to choose nominal “political independence” , the same multinationals, the same currency – (the £pound – controlled by London) , the same pan European austerity offensive , the same corruptly influential Murdoch press, the same fundamental economic structural weaknesses, would face the Scottish working class the day after nominal “independence”, as the day before. Today, in the advanced capitalist states, there is no “progressive” form of nationalism – only a diversion and distraction from working class self organisation and class consciousness.

        Fortunately I have no doubt at all that November Conference will laugh out of court any proposals from the “lets just restrict ourselves to England” enthusiasts who have posted so avidly here.

  28. Abu Jamal says:
    July 19, 2013 at 6:23 pm

    I Would like to propose that Rich and James withdraw the Draft constitution that they submitted to this commission.
    I absolutely agree that more people who are signatories of Ken Loach’s Appeal are encouraged to participate in this discussion.
    I would like to propose that the document this commission adopts as a ‘working document’ as a basis for discussion is that proposed by Sean T.
    I only suggest this way forward because I sincerely feel that we have a better chance of securing an agreed Draft to put forward for debate within the wide supporters of Left Unity if this Draft is roughly based upon that proposed by Sean T.
    In my view this is the best way to proceed.

  29. Melanie Griffiths says:
    July 19, 2013 at 6:57 pm

    If LU is eventually to become a party that fights elections in order for people who want a fairer society to have representatives in parliament, with the powers to actually argue for change and even eventually form a government, why would we only organise in England when all the other parties organise in the whole of the UK?
    Melanie Griffiths (Clue in the name – Welsh person)

    • Dave_E says:
      July 20, 2013 at 2:18 pm

      Actually all other parties don’t, there are some that fight elections specifically in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. What you mean is the three main established parties do this. But I’m not sure we want to emulate this.

      • Dave_E says:
        July 20, 2013 at 3:31 pm

        An addition note. Green Party – actual name Green Party England and Wales. Scotland is not included

  30. Richard Murgatroyd says:
    July 20, 2013 at 9:59 am

    Jimmy Roberts of Merseyside LU has asked us to post this contribution to the debate for him – Richard (co-convenor)

    All MPs and local elected Councillors should be subject to the same income
    restrictions as Party Officials and Leaders. The surplus of their salaries
    should be paid to the Party. There should be no exemptions to this Party
    rule other than those approved and voted upon by the Party NEC, and
    subject to ratification by the Annual Party Conference.
    Where and when the growth of Party membership makes such Sections feasible
    and viable, there shall be established Sections for Youth (from age 14 to
    18), Women, and Black and Asians.
    These sections should be subject to the same Party democracy and
    accountability as apply in the parent Party. They shall hold annual
    Conferences.
    All decisions, resolutions, and campaigning activities of these Sections
    shall be subject to the oversight, approval, and ratification of the
    parent Party NEC and Annual Conference, so as to ensure the maximum unity,
    coherence, discipline, and political effectiveness of the Party as a
    whole.
    Annual Party Conference decisions, resolutions, and policies must be
    adhered to by the Party Sections which shall have the right to campaign
    for there own decisions, resolutions, and policies subject to the
    sovereignty of the Party NEC and Annual Conference.
    All disciplinary actions, and decisions, taken by the Party NEC shall be
    subject to the approval of, and ratification by, Annual Party Conference,
    where affected Party members and/or Sections, shall have the right of
    Appeal.
    Jimmy Roberts.
    Blacklisted Socialist.
    Merseyside Left Unity.

  31. SeanT says:
    July 20, 2013 at 11:41 am

    One of the intractable problems of web based discussion is that discussions on one topic can get interlaced with discussions on other related topics because of the time lag in everybody reading and responding to previous contributions.

    My suggestion for dealing with this problem is that perhaps we might continue with our discussions on the current basis for another few days and then agree that from (say) next weekend we might go through Richard’s draft clause by clause seeing if we could get an agreed form of words on each then going on to the next. We may not be able to get agreement on everything, and I don’t think that Richard’s draft is detailed enough in a number of areas and would need a number of additional clauses – which we would also have to discuss. I hope that it would thus be possible for us end up being able to present one draft to the membership, with a number of alternative clauses here and there where there are clear differences of approach. It might be a slightly tedious process but it should mean that we do actually get a document that the membership at large can discuss and vote on.

    So in response to Richard’s suggestion about 100 yards back in the discussion (although he only posted it yesterday!) I am not at all attached to the alternative draft I submitted about a mile and a half back and will try working on alternative wordings to bits of the ‘Murgatroyd-Youd Mark 1’ constitution. Of course, we may find that it will end up being easier and clearer for everyone to present more than one draft , but let’s wait and see.

    I’m sorry, therefore if this appears to be chucking yet another dog into the fight before we have all chewed over the previous issues, but I’d like to comment on Richard’s proposal for a 41 member ‘National Collective Council’ as the leading body of the party between conferences and explain why I think the idea of two bodies is better.

    His idea seems to be based in part on the Green Party Regional Committee (GPRC), its equivalent of a national committee, which consists of two members elected by each region. He has bolted on to this a range of national officer posts which correspond loosely to the Greens’ Executive (GPEX) and suggested that the whole thing meet every two months.

    While I share with Richard (and most other comrades I imagine) a commitment to collective leadership, it seems to me that with this model, Richard has managed to produce the worst of all worlds. First, it is too big and won’t meet frequently enough to operate effectively as an executive. Furthermore, the requirement that the quorum is 80% (32 people) would be likely to ensure that many meetings are likely to be inquorate. The result of these weaknesses is almost certain to be the emergence of a de facto executive based on a small number of members who can meet quickly and frequently in response to events – therefore almost certainly London based. We know that this can happen, even with the best will in the world on the part of all those concerned, because it has already happened in LU, when the ten ‘centrally elected’ members of our National Co-ordinating Group (who were all based in or near London) met separately from the local group reps prior to the first ‘proper’ national group meeting in Darlington in order to sort out a number of issues that had, in their view, to be urgently dealt with. Because there is an unavoidable need to make executive decisions frequently and sometimes quickly, unless we have a formally constituted body which is capable of fulfilling that role in a democratically accountable way the function will be inevitably be performed in informal and unaccountable ways.

    Second, the proposed NCC would not be properly accountable to the membership as a whole in any meaningful way. The national officers are all elected by National Conference and don’t have to answer to anyone in between conferences. The experience of the Green Party shows regional meetings in most parts of the country are very poorly attended and that its regional committee (i.e national committee) representatives, reporting at relatively long intervals to small meetings, are not really held to account and they and what they do are largely unknown to ordinary members. In effect, the proposed NCC would not be answerable to the party as a whole except at national conferences, and even then the majority of its membership could not be removed by conference. Worse, it would inevitably lead to the development of an informal and unnacountable de facto executive – probably some of the national officers and a few other active members who happen to be around the centre.

    Since executive decisions will, inevitably, have to be made, we must ensure that they are made by a body which is as directly accountable to the branches between conferences as possible. Thus my proposal for an executive made up of the national officers and a majority of other members elected by conference (with a safeguard to ensure that all regions are represented) which would meet relatively frequently and report to (and be part of) a larger national council made up of delegates from every branch. While it would be relatively difficult for ordinary members in a region to question and/or replace a regional representative to a ‘national collective council’

  32. gerryc says:
    July 20, 2013 at 1:45 pm

    Hey Sean – yr “The national officers are all elected by National Conference and don’t have to answer to anyone in between conferences.”

    I queried this earlier in the thread. I believe Richard’s reply was to the effect that this is NOT what he intends – that collective leadership/NCC will be elected by OMOV in national elections.

    Richard I’d appreciate if you could you 1) just confirm I interpreted you right (was coming to come back anyway) and 2) confirm this is also the case for all national posts and committees – indeed the only posts not elected by national vote are regional and group reps?

    Thanks, Gerry

  33. gerryc says:
    July 20, 2013 at 2:22 pm

    Can I suggest we invert the order in which these threads are presented, so the most recent is first. Save lots of finger work! Gerry

  34. James Youd says:
    July 20, 2013 at 3:36 pm

    Contribution by email:
    All MPs and local elected Councillors should be subject to the same income
    restrictions as Party Officials and Leaders. The surplus of their salaries
    should be paid to the Party. There should be no exemptions to this Party
    rule other than those approved and voted upon by the Party NEC, and
    subject to ratification by the Annual Party Conference.
    Where and when the growth of Party membership makes such Sections feasible
    and viable, there shall be established Sections for Youth (from age 14 to
    18), Women, and Black and Asians.
    These sections should be subject to the same Party democracy and
    accountability as apply in the parent Party. They shall hold annual
    Conferences.
    All decisions, resolutions, and campaigning activities of these Sections
    shall be subject to the oversight, approval, and ratification of the
    parent Party NEC and Annual Conference, so as to ensure the maximum unity,
    coherence, discipline, and political effectiveness of the Party as a
    whole.
    Annual Party Conference decisions, resolutions, and policies must be
    adhered to by the Party Sections which shall have the right to campaign
    for there own decisions, resolutions, and policies subject to the
    sovereignty of the Party NEC and Annual Conference.
    All disciplinary actions, and decisions, taken by the Party NEC shall be
    subject to the approval of, and ratification by, Annual Party Conference,
    where affected Party members and/or Sections, shall have the right of
    Appeal.
    Jimmy Roberts.
    Blacklisted Socialist.
    Merseyside Left Unity.

  35. James Youd says:
    July 20, 2013 at 3:40 pm

    And another:
    LU should be a fundamentally grassroots-led, bottom up, democratic
    organisation with power resting with individual members and local groups.
    Policy should be made at an annual conference ( The National Committee
    elected there should be 50:50 male/female with BME members, Disabled, and
    Gay & Lesbian members encouraged to stand – 10 or 12 places?).
    We could also have LU Networks for BME, Disabled, Women, and Gay & Lesbian.
    Outside of conference day to day issues could be addressed by motions from
    local groups (who meet monthly (but could call emergency meetings) and on
    urgent issues individual members could e mail their group Secretary with
    their point (if outside of the cycle of monthly meetings) who could
    circulate this and majority view could be sent to the National Committee –
    NC). The NC could then e mail this to all groups again to seek a majority
    view (50%of branches) which they could then act upon.
    Speed and the efficient use of technology will be paramount -for example
    for urgent issues I e a war on Iran (or an issue not covered by annual
    conference) do we say respond the same day & send to the NC who then
    send out and can make a statement ASAP once they have a majority view.
    We could have more time for ordinary new policy issues between conferences
    if no policy on this. Hopefully Annual Conference will have covered most
    things but may need some flexibility.
    We need to get a balance that pleases the majority and one which is
    INCLUSIVE and EFFICIENT plus EFFECTIVE – traditional bottom-up democracy
    enhanced by new technology!
    Yours in solidarity,
    Barry Ewart, Leeds Group.

  36. Richard Murgatroyd says:
    July 20, 2013 at 4:41 pm

    Hi all

    First thanks to Sean for accepting that the working document we will be using will be the originally draft presented by James and myself, subject to amendment. We now seem to have a near-consensus on this.

    Unfortunately I am away from next Weds for three weeks so won’t be able to go through the draft section by section from next week as you suggest, but agree this is necessary at some point. Are people happy to do this after August 13th – obviously I’d be keen to be involved. Our first real deadline will be the September open meeting of LU when it would be good to present a very preliminary draft if we can and there will be ample time to do this.

    So these appear to be outstanding issues at the moment:

    REGIONAL, SCOTTISH AND WELSH COMMITTEES
    Sean, earlier I posted a suggested wording to meet your concerns in clause 4 (e). John P amended this to tighten further it somewhat. However you haven’t commented on it yet. Are you broadly satisfied with this wording and approach..? If YES, please say and we can tighten up final wording later. If NO, please suggest an alternative draft to 4(e).

    BASED ON GREEN PARTY CONSTITUTION?
    I used to be a member of the Greens but never attended national conference or read the constitution so these proposals are based largely on my experience as trade unionist and member of the Labour Party and (un)democratic centralised far left groups. James , who used to do constitutional stuff for the Greens tells me that actually the original draft is very different. Can’t comment on that but I suppose its a largely academic point anyway

    WHY A COLLECTIVE LEADERSHIP AS OPPOSED TO A TRADITIONAL EXECUTIVE TYPE LEADERSHIP?
    The idea of a collective leadership is designed to

    – prevent unhealthy concentrations of power

    – ensure fair representation of women at every level

    – ensure that the there is a strong regional/Welsh/Scottish voice elected by members in that region
    – national post-holders are annually elected by the WHOLE membership and not delegates at the annual conference (as the under SSP constitution)

    – members will therefore get a clear opportunity to vote on the basis of the political opinions of candidates, encouraging debate and discussion throughout the party

    – the national post-holders will have specific responsibilities but male/female representation will ensure that work is shared and hopefully spokes-people can play to their strengths. The regional reps will hold them to account in between Annual Conference

    – time limits on terms of office will ensure a fairly regular turn-over of office at both a regional and national post-holder level – new faces, new voices, new ideas are more likely to be seen and heard

    MY RESPONSE TO SEAN’S OBJECTIONS TO A NATIONAL COLLECTIVE COUNCIL

    1. SIZE – given that the proposed changes to 4 (e) now remove the two reps allocated for Northern Ireland the total will be 39. I do not think this is excessive and is the size of many union executives. It is standard practice to form sub-committees to deal with specific detailed issues in the labour movement and the proposed rules allow for this (see 4 (g). This will allow the NCC to respond effectively if sudden issues arise. It can also meet more frequently if it deems it necessary.

    2. FREQUENCY – you are right Sean, it should be a minimum of 8 times a year rather than 6 (see 4 (g) VI)

    3. QUORUM – Mike raised this earlier and suggested 55-60% and I think this sounds sensible

    4. ACCOUNTABILITY – A LONDON BASED CLIQUE WILL FORM AND RUN THINGS – I cannot see why this is more likely under this structure as under a traditional executive model? Indeed, the membership of the NCC is weighted towards the regions/Scotland/Wales AND as National post-holders are elected nationally by OMOV of the whole membership (not a delegate conference) why should most of these 17 people be expected to come together as a clique and/or mainly live in London? As I think you said in an earlier post Sean, no constitution can guarantee a healthy internal life of a party, only an engaged active membership can.

    At least this structure ensures that regular election, turn-over of post-holders and political debate will be embedded in the whole process.

    • Guy H says:
      July 20, 2013 at 5:26 pm

      Hi Richard and all

      I do see that a degree of consensus is being reached here regarding the ‘aims of the party’ statement but would like to explain my thoughts on why this is misplaced and argue that it is outside our remit to produce such a statement.

      There was a motion passed at the first NCG meeting last month that “The
      founding conference should discuss and vote on a broad policy statement (such as the East London draft), on democratic structure and membership issues, and on issues relating to ongoing antiausterity campaigns and the 2014 European elections.” – minutes here: http://leftunity.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/NCG-15.06.13-Draft-Minutes.pdf

      As you can see the first proposed statement has been put forward (http://leftunity.org/left-party-platform-statement/)- there is at least one more platform that I know of producing another statement and local groups may be submitting their own. The statements will be discussed in local groups around the country and there will no doubt be amendment motions to these statements put from local groups in the coming months for consideration in November.

      As I see it, whatever statement gets passed in November will have been through a far more rigorous democratic process than any proposed by this small working commission (as it should be). Also I think that when a statement is passed at the conference, it will be expected to enter the constitution of the party.

      I think that the ‘aims of the party’ statement that this commission has been working on will at that point be rendered invalid by whatever statement is passed, since this seems to me to fulfil the same function.

      Sorry to piss on everyone’s cornflakes here but whilst the proposed statement is a very good one, and one I would be perfectly happy putting my name to (although I’ve put my name to the one that’s just been put forward), I think we are duplicating a process that is already taking place and should allow that to happen rather than submitting a statement to the conference as a commission.

      • Richard Murgatroyd says:
        July 21, 2013 at 7:13 am

        Guy

        Hi Guy

        I don’t eat cornflakes so piss away!

        But I’m afraid I don’t agree because I am assuming:

        a) the political statement agreed in November will be precisely that – a what we stand for at this time, in these circumstances

        b) the aims section of a rules booklet is to set out in the broadest of broad formulations the very basic aims of LU which all the rest of the rules should adhere to

        They are not the same thing.

        Best

        Rich

  37. SeanT says:
    July 20, 2013 at 5:08 pm

    Trying to tie up some loose ends; I said that I would come up with alternative wording to 6.1(b) in my draft of this part of the constitution that would more clearly state what I had intended (and what I think/hope most comrades would be happy with) – here it is:

    Recognising that Scotland and Wales, are separate nations and that separate political situations pertain in them to those in England, party members in those countries will determine, subject to the approval of National Conference, the appropriate forms of organisation they will adopt and, wherever possible, how best to work together with other indigenous left parties and organisations.

    Second; Gerry, Richard’s suggestion is that the National Collective Council (Ugh!) will be made up of two reps elected from each region (24 members) and 17 ‘national’ posts.The way they are elected is not at all clear – at the moment the only reference is that ‘voting in elections for regional representatives will be conducted nationally through STV using electronic systems via the internet. There is no reference to how the national officer posts will be elected except that it will be annually. I think that Richard means that regional reps would be elected by the members in each region and that national posts would be elected on a national basis.

    I am suggesting that the big majority of the members of a National Council should be reps directly elected from each branch, with the rest of the council made up of the members of an executive committee, which is in turn made up of nationally elected officers and a majority of members elected by national Conference.

    By the way, I think that the discussions here are becoming increasingly disjointed and difficult to follow – it shows the inherent limitations of web based discussions I think (or it could just be my declining mental facilities!). Would it perhaps be possible for us to agree a date fairly early in September when all or most of us could actually get together for a day to sort some or all of these issues out in order that we could a) clarify the main areas of agreement (which are many) and b) identify the areas of disagreement. I for one would be happy to travel anywhere for such a meeting.

  38. SeanT says:
    July 20, 2013 at 7:10 pm

    Richard, I’m sorry that I didn’t see your contribution from yesterday afternoon until a short while ago – this reinforces my view that the structure of the web discussion is making it increasingly difficult to follow a point through to a coherent conclusion – but i’ll try to respond in the order of the points you made in order.

    4e)i No problem with this, although I would prefer to call local party branches branches rather than groups.

    ii No problem, but I would delete the second held of the sentance (with the proviso that they do not…) and replace with ‘subject to approval by National Conference/National Council’.

    iii No problem except for nitpicking about groups/branches.

    iv Replace everything after ‘The role of English regional, Welsh and Scottish committees’ with ‘co-ordinating and prioritising campaigning and organisational activities, assisting in the creation and building of branches and encouraging political education.

    v I’m completely opposed to this clause.

    • Hoom says:
      July 21, 2013 at 1:17 pm

      @ SeanT

      “By the way, I think that the discussions here are becoming increasingly disjointed and difficult to follow – it shows the inherent limitations of web based discussions I think ”

      I think it more shows the inherent limitations of a WordPress backend for this kind of discussion. Because we’re working with nested comments, the issue of separate discussions going on is always going to be a problem. Especially as we don’t have the option of spinning stuff off into a different thread.

      I know I keep banging on about this, but we really do need a proper forum, preferably with a handful of experienced moderators.

      • Guy H says:
        July 22, 2013 at 7:14 pm

        There is exactly such a forum available to us if we want to use it! (Although we’d have to work out moderation between ourselves). Some members of the web team have suggested it can be used for this purpose although I don’t think James is keen?

  39. gerryc says:
    July 22, 2013 at 9:04 am

    Is there consensus? Is aims section essential or unimportant preamble? I need to know before inputting further.

    How to keep up with all the sub-threads? I agree a meeting would be useful but think we should also progress the online debate further with online voting.

    VOTING FORM: please look at this and consider if you’d be happy to use it?

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

    ATB, Ged Cavander

  40. Hoom says:
    July 22, 2013 at 10:33 am

    @ gerryc

    How are you stopping people voting multiple times? (Requiring an email address doesn’t stop that- someone could just register multiple accounts on here). Obviously, we hope nobody would, but this is the kind of thing we’ll need to work out before we can move to any kind of online voting.

    • Guy H says:
      July 22, 2013 at 7:12 pm

      As I understand it there should be a ‘membership’ of the commission? I know there is an excel spreadsheet that’s been circulated by the Commissions Organisation working group that has a list of 30 people involved in this group – although I believe this list is incomplete as I’m not on it! Richard & James, do you have an up to date membership?

      Also my understanding was that policy commissions would have a mechanism for minority proposals and amendments – Richard/James has there been any guidance on this from the Commissions Organisation working group? (We don’t have a separate proposal from every member of the commission!). Anyway using this mechanism would be useful and we could use September to vote for various proposals as an indicative process (if the mechanism requires a percentage of votes from the commission to go to the conference, for example)?

      It seems clear to me that we aren’t going to get consensus on everything and a majority vote with only one proposal doesn’t necessarily cut it.

  41. Richard Murgatroyd says:
    July 22, 2013 at 10:35 am

    Hi all

    PROCESS – NEXT STEPS

    Over the weekend, picking up Sean’s suggestion, I have read through all the posts and incorporated all the uncontentious and specific amendments into one Working Document which will hopefully be circulated later today. This will clear the decks of clutter and hopefully allow everyone to look at all the sections and comment/suggest amendments

    What struck me reading through the many thousands of words is how few of them actually suggested concrete proposals/amendments. As convenors we are calling upon people to avoid getting into long debates, long polemics, extended statements about their vision for a left party and stay focussed on the task at hand. There is still much work to do.

    Thanks to all those who have made positive and constructive suggestions – you know who you are – and when you read the Working Document I hope you will get some satisfaction from seeing that your positive approach is reflected in it and will shape the future direction of LU.

    Actually there seems to be a consensus on almost everything important – the only really contentious remaining seems to be the nature of the leadership body.

    Hoom – I’m OK with any forum and I suspect you know more than me about IT stuff BUT am pretty keen to keep it on here because its so much more open to people to comment on. Now we have a working draft this should be easier. I’d be minded to stick with the website for at least a little bit longer

    Ged, had a look at your voting form and this could be fantastic BUT I’d say lets use it just a little bit further down the line when people have had chance to comment on the working document, make more changes, maybe write competing wordings for specific sections and we have a generally clearer idea of differences and points of agreement. I’m not sure everyone would be clear about what they are voting on at the moment.

    I would suggest we use your methodology in early September so we are in a position to meet together face to face at the open September meeting and discuss something that is as ‘finished’ as possible.

    So working draft on its way later today!

    Best

    Richard

  42. Geoff Halliday says:
    July 22, 2013 at 3:33 pm

    Couple of points…

    Whilst national conferences are essential, decision making needs to move beyond this if we are to be truly democratic. Perhaps as a starter, people who can’t make conference could e-vote, at least on particularly important issues.

    With regard to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. I don’t see how any democrat can object to branches in any part of the UK that people want to join.

    • SeanT says:
      July 22, 2013 at 4:00 pm

      I hesitate to respond Geoff, since we seem to have been chewing over this issue forever – however…

      The UK state is made up of Great Britain (England, Scotland and Wales) plus the gerrymandered statelet of Northern Ireland. I have no objection at all to establishing branches anywhere GB, taking into consideration, of course, the different political situations and sensitivities that pertain in the different nations that have been discussed here. As you say, no democrat could object to that. My problem is comes with the suggestion that a British party should presume to organise in any part of the island of Ireland.

      We wouldn’t dream of organising south of the border that was imposed on the majority of the Irish people by the threat of force of arms – why should we think that it is OK to organise north of it? I would imagine that most socialists would utterly condemn any attempt by any Israeli parties to organise in the Occupied Territories; I regard a British party organising in the North of Ireland as being much the same as that.

      Sorry for the rant – my republican upbringing may be showing a bit!

  43. James Youd says:
    July 22, 2013 at 5:46 pm

    Apologies at my absence in the discussion. Any more comments about England, Wales, Scotland, NI, UK will now not get through moderation.
    Guy this is the place to be discussing Aims as that will comprise the first part of the constitution. We spoke about that last week so you are a bit late.
    James

    • Abu Jamal says:
      July 23, 2013 at 10:18 am

      James,

      your comments

      “Apologies at my absence in the discussion. Any more comments about xxxxxx, xxxxx, xxxxxxxx, xx, xx will now not get through moderation.”

      This Strikes me a we bit authoritarian.

      Very different from the tone of your earlier contributions as a Green Party activist – for example your comments in just before the Green Party of xxxxxxx and xxxxx Autumn conference in 2010

      “We need to have structures which are stronger but which originate from the root in the ground, not the leaf high up in the sky. I think our ability over other minority parties, such as UKIP, to elect many more councillors comes out of those roots, embedded in local communities fighting for justice in the economy and environment, both locally and internationally. Empowering these activists and inspiring them with a message they can say they had collective decision in, will spur them and our party on.”

      Of course things have moved on since then the Green Party has shown its constitutional weakness and authoritarian streak via the expulsions of socialists like myself and of course UKIP has steamrollered its way to having as many councillors as the Green Party.

      It is interesting that this Internal Democracy and Constitutional Commission of Left Unity has so many Green Party Members playing a role….
      Yourself, Richard, Sean T – and myself.

      I look forward to reading a re-drafted working document that Richard is preparing however, I do not feel that it is the role of convenors to restrict or constrain contributions via ‘moderation’. If people come ‘late’ to the discussion like ‘Guy’ then this is a reflection of reality. As Richard commented earlier on he was surprised that so few activists in Huddersfield Left Unity were apparently unaware that this Internal Democracy and Constitutional Commission existed.

      It actually, takes some courage for many people to type a contribution and press post comment ‘especially’ with the awareness that there is a tendency for discussions to become combative and confrontational. So if people come to this thread ‘late’ then however frustrating and annoying it may be to others we should still welcome their contribution and no subject area or constitutional clause should be sacrosanct no area should be untouchable.

      I say this – because in my 4 decades of activity in numerous organisations and campaigns I have witnessed time and time again attempts to prevent or supress democratic discussion lead to a later much more messy elemental explosion.

  44. Dave_E says:
    July 23, 2013 at 7:54 am

    Well James,
    I see YOU have decided to close discussion and YOU and Richard WILL decided what that there was ‘agreement on everything but the leadership’. Well that’s certainly fixing the agenda.
    VERY POOR ADMINISTRATION AND A DAMAGING START – major problem

  45. gerryc says:
    July 23, 2013 at 8:55 am

    To clarify Richard, you are pressing on with your draft and after you’ve delivered it you will be away for 3 weeks?

    I believe that the Aims / Basic Principles statement is contentious in several ways (inclusion and content). But I’ll wait for our new draft as instructed.

    ATB Gerry

  46. James Youd says:
    July 23, 2013 at 3:00 pm

    Mark,
    I am not trying to restrict debate at all and believe very much in the quote you attribute to me. If a couple of people want to discuss the questions that I mentioned I will more than happily set up a separate thread but making others who are not interested in the historical and or not situation within the British Isles (apologies if this is offensive) is not democratic as they are contributing.
    Dave, the conveners are trying to guide the process and avoid getting bogged down in niche arguments which are important but need to be had in separate space from the main thread. I am posting what Richard has complied from the contributions that have been made on this thread and which we have done our best to democratically incorporate.
    Dave and Mark, if you are unhappy with me being a convener then I am happy if either of you want to take over.
    Best wishes James

  47. FatOldSon says:
    August 13, 2013 at 2:39 am

    Um… Hello? I’ve been gone for a while as my hd gave up the ghost and is being sorted as we speak. I am using my wife’s laptop, despite the extremely stern looks I am getting while I type this. So, what happened? is there a second draft, and if so where is it? Is there now a separate discussion about the Scotland & Wales thing that I had wanted to contribute to (before the crash)?

    A very confused Joe Barr!

  48. philipfoxe says:
    August 18, 2013 at 6:18 pm

    As a new contributor I am not ‘one of the gang here’ so excuse me if I limit my contribution to less than 10,000 words. I note a generalised consensus that NI, Scotland and Wales are separate from England. It is my sad duty to inform you that this is not the case. They are all to an extent devolved, but are and will continue to be for the foreseeable future, part of the UK. There is nothing inherently ‘progressive’ about splitting away from England, and the Scottish electorate will doubtless make that clear in the near future. Further, to suggest that it is some way patronising to operate in Northern Ireland; might I suggest that a failure to do so leaves the population with little to choose from but Green and Orange conservatives. Anyone who thinks Gerry Adams is a socialist should join the Labour Party at once!I would welcome the establishment of a non-sectarian socialist party there, and would be appalled were its acceptance into a wider British context not fully welcomed. I also note that the proposal to guarantee women 50% representation on all national committees has seemingly gone by without mention. This is not a small issue but one I have yet to be convince about. Women are most certainly underrepresented on many levels of society, but that is (in part only) because women are underpowered in general due to their role in society. Suppose you had 50 men and 5 women standing for committee places. Suppose there are ten places and the men hold views which coincide with the members’ while the women do not. The women will then be able to have at least half the votes while they may have very little support. Doesn’t seem democratic. It makes just as much sense to demand 90% are working class as its working class people who have the least say. What about black, ethnic, LBGT? I think representation should be on the basis of politics, activity and those who can demonstrate their commitment to carrying out the members’ wishes and arguing for them. As for women’s representation, I believe the best way to ensure women’s voices are heard is to ensure that woman are positively recruited and supported in taking up leadership roles rather than parachuted in.Perhaps we could make a start by noting the dearth of women this blog and get some to post their views!!!!


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