|
Report of Campaign for Labour Party Democracy (CLPD) AGM 2011 |
 |
 |
|
Friday, 04 March 2011 |
CPLD held its Annual General Meeting on Saturday 19 February at Conway Hall in central London. Given that the date clashed with Ken Livingstone’s Progressive London conference at Congress House nearby, it was good to see so many Labour Party (LP) activists opting to attend our conference.
|
|
Read more...
|
|
Arguments against AV put together by CLPD’s Secretary |
|
|
|
Sunday, 19 December 2010 |
|
• AV benefits the Lib Dems. It has been estimated by the British election study team at Essex University that under AV the number of Lib Dem MPs would rise from 57 to 89, while the Tories would drop from 307 to 285 and labour from 258 to 248. • The only countries using AV are Australia, Fiji and the Pacific island of Nauru (The Papua New Guineans dropped it and the Fijians are having their doubts). • AV makes coalition governments much more likely. The Lib Dems will be the kingmakers – they are as likely to go with the Tories as with Labour. “AV opens the door to a new political world in which coalitions become the norm, and single-party majority government a distant memory. Defeat for AV could quickly end the Coalition Government. But success would bind it together – for a long time to come” Vernon Bogdanor, Cameron’s tutor at Oxford. |
|
Read more...
|
|
Why Labour must change its policy making process |
|
|
|
Friday, 16 July 2010 |
by David Hide
Many of us believe that the 13 years of a Labour Government corresponded with the diminution and subsequent demolition of democracy within the Labour Party. The introduction of Partnership in Power ended meaningful debate at our Annual Conference as party policy making was shunted off stage left into the National Policy Forum (NPF). While the thinking person knew this, the Party wished to maintain a veneer of democracy at our Conference and so provided the world with the meaningless spectacle of hand- picked members reading nauseatingly partisan speeches prepared by party workers. However PIP 1 did still allow us to discuss contemporary issues, with each CLP or affiliate having the opportunity of submitting a single motion, but only if they had not already submitted a rule change earlier in the year. How crazy is this? Aren’t most people involved in politics interested in both changing rules and debating current affairs, not it would seem if you are a member of the Labour Party?
|
|
Read more...
|
|
|
|
<< Start < Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next > End >>
|
|
Page 4 of 6 |
Forum
