by Trevor Fisher

The Labour party system of electing a leader for an indefinite period makes sensible recall procedures impossible. The logical reason for an open ended term was ended once the Fixed Parliament Act was passed in 2010, as the need to have a leader ready in opposition to fight an election was ended. Up to then, the government could call an election at any time so Labour had to be ready. Now the government is able to replace the Prime Minister within a five year term, Labour also gained this freedom while in opposition.

Previously the Labour party could be caught out by a snap election with no leader in place, as it was in 1935.

The fact that there is no fixed term of office, allows mechanisms for challenging and replacing the leader while in opposition, which are indeed part of the rule book. However the rules are vague and certainly do not provide a mandatory system. Instead they either allow a leader to go on for the full term – currently 4 years and 8 months once the NEC had decreed a four month campaign, which is not within the rules*. Alternatively, members of the PLP are allowed to challenge the leader and indeed apparently can do so on a yearly basis if they wish.

The rules decree the currently operative three section system of full members, registered supporter and affiliated members (mainly unions), but I have not been able to find a definition of their rights and responsibilities, but it is clear this is not One Member One Vote (OMOV) and the phrase ‘One Person One Vote’ is used.(Chapter 4, Clause 2, Section C clause viii). This is not the only ambiguity in the rules, but there is no ambiguity that the rules allow a challenge to the leader by forcing a ballot.

How the ballot would be carried out is not in the rule book as far as I can see, but the current postal-electronic ballot and complex vetting procedures, which are inefficient and not actually specified in the rules as far as I can see, could not be repeated easily. The resources involved are considerable, potentially ruinous and could not be operated especially if the challenges became annual, which appears to be currently possible and hardly desirable.

A challenge or recall is allowed by rule: it simply is not mandatory. The opening gambit is page 4 sub clause ii – “the Leader/Deputy shall be elected or re-elected from among Commons members of the PLP in accordance with procedural rule Chapter 4 clause II below, at a Party conference convened in accordance with Clause VI above”

Clause VI above simply says “Party conference shall meet regularly once in every year and also at such times as it may be convened by the NEC”, thus implying the election procedures do not have to be at the Autumn Party conference.

But there is a contradiction. Chapter clause II, Rule D(i) states that “When the PLP is in opposition, the election of the leader and deputy leader shall take place at each annual session of party conference”. How this is compatible with a one person one vote system is unfathomable: Conference is a delegate body. This is not however the main problem, which is the system of challenging the leader.

Chapter V clause II says that ‘the leader and deputy leader shall be elected separately in accordance with rule C below unless rule E applies”. C is Voting Procedure, setting out a one person one vote basis – specifically clause C viii. The three types of participant are set out in clause C vi “votes shall be case in a single section, by Labour Party Members, affiliated supporters and registered supporters”. Rule E is procedure in a vacancy, which applied to the election following Miliband’s resignation.

The contentious issue is procedure when there is no vacancy. This is covered by Chapter 4, Clause II, rule 2 B ii. This crucial rule states “Where there is no vacancy, nominations may be sought be potential challengers each year prior to the annual session of party conference. In this case nominations must be supported by 20% of the Commons members of the PLP”. Thus an annual challenge is possible. It must take place before Annual Conference, and this is in line with D(i) cited above. However this contradicts the stipulation that the NEC can call a conference for the purpose. The rules appear to be stating that there can be a challenge in any year to the leader, but only at Annual Conference. If so, a one person one vote ballot is impossible.

It is hardly reasonable to allow an annual challenge to the Leader, but the rules seem to allow this. It is certainly not possible to have a one person one vote system if there is a challenge made at conference, and there must be serious questions about the viability of the current system given the allegations of entryism, and that some members have not had their ballot papers.

Irrespective of the current arguments, however, it would be sensible to have a rule approved system for a mid-term chance to recall the leader, without this being based on the vagaries of PLP politics: the leader is the leader of the Party, as well as the PLP. This would remove ambiguity, but would have to take place at annual conference. There is no other practical way of doing it. Recall can strengthen an existing leader if successfully resisted, but give Labour a second bite of the cherry if the leader is patently failing. Miliband might have survived a challenge after two years – whether he would have survived a challenge after three or four years is debatable. But the opportunity of recall should have existed.

Looking forward, the present PM has said he will resign before the election. Labour will face a new leader, and the problem it faced in 1990 when the Tories removed Thatcher for the more popular Major. For this and other reasons, it is foolish to elect a leader for one set of circumstances only to find they change. While there is a possibility of changing the leaders mid-term, the current procedures are complex and contradictory. They should be revised at the 2016 conference to allow a more sensible system of leadership recall.

The rules do not fix a timetable. Instead they prescribe a framework within which the NEC has considerable flexibility.

Trevor Fisher was a member of the Labour Coordinating Committee executive 1987-90 and secretary of the Labour Reform Group 1995- 2007

Tags: annual conference, Labour leadership election, leadership recall, leadership rules, NEC, Trevor Fisher