Post by stevedtrm on Dec 2, 2016 7:58:05 GMT
NOTE:- These are the most important motions in the recent history of the Labour party, since it defeats a constitutional amendment that undermines the will of conference to direct and veto changes to the supreme ruling executive body which controls everything from expulsions to shortlists and membership in the Labour Party.
MOTION 1 BEGINS
This BLP/CLP resolves that:-
Video evidence from the Labour Party's own youtube channel provided at an internet address bit.ly/2fjvUsa during the first 90 minutes shows events surrounding a vote to reference back the Conference Arrangements Committee report. The report being voted upon described and entered into record the alleged authorisation by conference of a single vote on a large package of many constitutional changes. One of these proposed constitutional amendments had the effect of adding 2 unelected representatives to the National Executive Committee. A "reference back" essentially means conference rejects the report until edits are made to the report to satisfy conference.
At 31:25 - 34:00 in the video several delegates from the floor can be heard calling for a card vote. Chapter 3 Clause 3 Rule 3 of the Labour 2016 rules requires that "Voting at Party conference on resolutions, reports, amendments, proposals and references back shall be by show of hands or, when the conditions laid down by the CAC require it, by card.". The CAC pecified in its earlier report that "votes at Conference are taken as a show of hands unless a card vote is requested by delegates or by the decision of the Chair." The failure to hold a card vote at this time is therefore a breach of the Labour party constitution. The video also shows that Mr Lillis violated this rule despite attention being drawn to the fact by dozens of people on the conference floor and representations by an NEC member, Christine Shawcroft, and the reference back motion mover, Manuel Cortes.
Video evidence therefore demonstrates conclusively that during conference conference chair Paddy Lillis violated the Labour party constitution during voting on the CAC report in question. This violation came during a vote which denied conference a later opportunity to vote on constitutional changes seperately. The votes denied included changes to the composition of the Labour's supreme executive body.
If this motion is passed at a BLP (Branch Labour Party) then the BLP resolves that the BLP secretary shall pass this motion to the CLP secretary at the earliest opportunity to be moved there and mandates any delegates to the CLP to move, second and vote for the motion at that time. If passed at CLP, then the CLP resolves that the motion shall be passed to the CLP representatives on the NEC and to the 33 member NEC for motion there.
MOTION 1 ENDS
MOTION 2 BEGINS
Paddy Lillis was the conference chair on Tuesday morning at Labour conference 2016. Mr Lillis actions are shown on the video of the 2016 Tuesday morning conference found at bit.ly/2fjvUsa . During this video, Mr Lillis holds a vote to ratify the report which included the alleged passing of a motion to combine several constitutional amendments into one vote. He is shown during the video violating party rules by denying a card vote to many delegates demanding one on the "reference back" of the report. Qualified barrister Duncan Shipley Dalton LL.B(Hons) LL.M CPLS MPA (Harvard) Barrister-at-Law (no longer practicing) stated, in excerpts from the opinion provided at goo.gl/hDmeGV:-
a) "The failure to take a card vote means the bundling motion was in my view invalidly declared passed."
b) "There is no good reason why a card vote was not held on the bundling motion and the failure to comply with the conference standing orders and therefore the party rules may be contractually legally invalid and arguably the bundled rules that were put by motion to conference for card vote that changed the rules are invalid."
This meeting recognises that the Labour party rules provide and regulate the legal relationship between members of the party and the party officers. This meeting therefore resolves that Mr Lillis acted unlawfully by denying a card vote he was required to provide. This meeting resolves therefore that no lawful process altered the rules with any of the amendments contained in the package of rule changes in question.
If this motion is passed at a BLP (Branch Labour Party) then the BLP resolves that the BLP secretary shall pass this motion to the CLP secretary at the earliest opportunity to be moved there and mandates any delegates to the CLP to move, second and vote for the motion at that time. If passed at CLP, then the CLP resolves that the motion shall be passed to the CLP representatives on the NEC and to the 33 member NEC for motion there.
MOTION 2 ENDS
MOTION 3 BEGINS
Brecon and Radnorshire CLP in Wales previously recognised a rule violation relating to a process which attempted to alter the Labour party constitution on Tuesday morning at conference 2016 by passing a motion drafted by Mike Sivier. Excerpts of which are displayed at web address goo.gl/XBZa09 . In part, the motion stated that:- “The decision to allow the rule changes cannot be allowed to stand as Labour Party voting rules were broken"... "As they stand, these rule changes are unenforceable and no party unit is obliged to abide by any decisions made under them." This BLP /CLP endorses these conclusions.
This BLP/CLP continues to recognise and be bound by the legitimate 33 member NEC as described by the 2016 rules which have not been, as of November 15th 2016, legitimately modified by any lawful process with reference to any NEC composition alteration. This meeting asserts that the 33 member NEC should be called by the General Secretary or by individual members or by any lawful methodology in order to:-
i) appoint its own chair
ii) to call a special conference to meet and vote by card on the rule package and potentially, the individual rules in that package.
iii) in its dispute resolution capacity, to publicly declare the illegitimacy of the rule package and any resulting 35 member group until conference can meet and vote by card on the rule package.
iv) Appoint NEC subcommittees
v) Begin the administration of the Labour party immediately.
No clause of this motion instructs BLP or CLP officers to violate any element of the Labour party rules. Any clause of this motion which is found by conference, the courts or the 2016/2017 NEC as described by the unaltered 2015/2016 rules to be in direct violation of those rules shall nullify that clause of this motion and any logically dependent clauses causing them it to be of no validity recognition, force or value in any party unit. Clauses not logically dependent on any such nullified clause will remain an accurate representation of the positions and instructions of BLP / CLP which passed it.
If this motion is passed at a BLP (Branch Labour Party) then the BLP resolves that the BLP secretary shall pass this motion to the CLP secretary at the earliest opportunity to be moved there and mandates any delegates to the CLP to move, second and vote for the motion at that time. If passed at CLP, then the CLP resolves that the motion shall be passed to the CLP representatives on the NEC and to the 33 member NEC for motion there.
MOTION 3 ENDS
MOTION 4 BEGINS
This BLP / CLP resolves that a conference must be called at the earliest opportunity specifically to move and vote by card on the package of the multiple rules illegitimately created by an unlawful process at conference. If the packaging of the multiple rules is not ratified in the conference card vote, the same conference must hold card votes on the individual seperate rule changes contained in the package.
The Brecon CLP resolution states, regarding any vote on this issue:- “representatives of Welsh Labour and Scottish Labour to sit on the NEC ... have a conflict of interest and may not vote on it.”
Qualified barrister Duncan Shipley Dalton LL.B(Hons) LL.M CPLS MPA (Harvard) Barrister-at-Law (no longer practicing) stated, in an excerpt from the opinion provided at goo.gl/hDmeGV:-
"There is also the concern that if the Rule changes made by conference in 2016 are constitutionally and thus contractually invalid any reliance on them might be ultra vires. So potentially decisions made by the NEC become ultra vires on the basis that it is improperly constituted, though this might only be the case where the voting margin was fewer than 2."
This BLP/CLP endorses both of these statements.
If this motion is passed at a BLP (Branch Labour Party) then the BLP resolves that the BLP secretary shall pass this motion to the CLP secretary at the earliest opportunity to be moved there and mandates any delegates to the CLP to move, second and vote for the motion at that time. If passed at CLP, then the CLP resolves that the motion shall be passed to the CLP representatives on the NEC and to the 33 member NEC for motion there.
MOTION 4 ENDS
APPENDIX A:- SUPPLEMENTARY EVIDENCE
i) There is a critical and alarming video named "Annual Conference 2016 - Tuesday Morning" which is, at the time of writing, visible on Labour's youtube channel. The video shows Paddy Lillis, Conference and NEC chair, violate the Labour party rules when passing a report which attempted to alter the voting process to add unelected representatives to the National Executive Committee. The national executive committee is the supreme executive power inside Labour. Labour rules dictate that conference is the Labour party's sovereign body. This video undermines that belief and suggests that the conference chair or NEC chair can now overrule conference simply by ignoring delegates and the rules constraining the chair. The video is named "Annual Conference 2016 - Tuesday Morning". At the time this motion is drafted, the video is visible at this web address:- bit.ly/2fjvUsa . The first 90 minutes of the video show events surrounding a vote to reference back the Conference Arrangements Committee report. A reference back vote means a vote to reject the report until edits are made to satisfy conference. It then shows Christine Shawcroft rising to alert Paddy to the calls for a card vote. Paddy again overrules this and many other calls for a card vote and subsequently carries out a show of hands vote to accept the report, ignoring the motion to reference back.
ii) Manuel Cortes then rises to highlight the fact that the rules have just been broken. At 43:55-44:15 in the same video Leigh Drennan rises to quote from the relevant part of the CAC voting conditions which the chair is required by the rules to follow.
iii) At 26:10-26:56 in the same video is a delegate who came to speak on the stage. This delegate claimed that similar votes on previous days motions relating to the packaging of multiple rules for a single vote by conference were voted on by a show of hands and were too close to call and uncertain.
iv) A card vote is specifically designed to address this lack of certainty when a show of hands vote occurs. Paddy implies this during his spoken attempts to defend his rule violation from the platform.
v) The Brecon CLP motion states “On Sunday, September 25, Mr Lillis refused calls by members for a proper debate and ballot on each individual NEC rule change and called a vote by a simple show of hands on the Conference Arrangements Committee’s report, that said the NEC’s proposals would be packaged as one ‘take it or leave it’ bundle. Forcing the vote to be by show of hands only meant there was no proper oversight. Although the numbers of hands for and against were clearly closely-matched, Mr Lillis called out “overwhelmingly carried” and moved on, ignoring demands that he abide by the rules and carry out a card vote that would be properly monitored and counted. If a single delegate requests a card vote, then it must take place, so this was a clear breach of the voting rules."
vi) Qualified barrister Duncan Shipley Dalton LL.B(Hons) LL.M CPLS MPA (Harvard) Barrister-at-Law (no longer practicing) stated in part in an as yet unconfirmed email communication:- "The failure to take a card vote means the bundling motion was in my view invalidly declared passed."
"There is no good reason why a card vote was not held on the bundling motion and the failure to comply with the conference standing orders and therefore the party rules may be contractually legally invalid and arguably the bundled rules that were put by motion to conference for card vote that changed the rules are invalid."
"There is also the concern that if the Rule changes made by conference in 2016 are constitutionally and thus contractually invalid any reliance on them might be ultra vires. So potentially decisions made by the NEC become ultra vires on the basis that it is improperly constituted, though this might only be the case where the voting margin was fewer than 2."
vii) I have personally met with witnesses to the vote on the Sunday who say that the vote at this time was very close AND that at this point, even before the Tuesday record, calls for a card vote on this motion of supreme importance were ignored.
===
APPENDIX B:- SUPPORTING ARGUMENTS
i) Most of these rule changes were popular but two changes added unelected members to Labours supreme executive body and were hugely divisive and hotly contested during the NEC meeting which forwarded to conference.
ii) This hotly controversial rule change was added at short notice a few days before it was voted on at conference.
iii) Kate Lewis, Salford and Eccles CLP asserted during the video that a special conference should be held specifically to analyse and idscuss the individual constitutional changes.
iv) The Brecon CLP motion calls on the NEC “to nullify the recent vote at party conference on a package of 15 rule changes, including the addition of Welsh Labour and Scottish Labour representatives to the NEC, on the grounds that Mr Paddy Lillis, who was chairing the conference at the time of the vote, prevented members from voting on the changes in the proper manner."
v) The Brecon CLP resolution referring to the Tuesday vote states that: “The show of hands was again hard to judge, but Mr Lillis simply said it was clearly carried. The vote then took place in the early afternoon. Because the Unite union had a number of rule changes it wanted included in the bundle, delegates from the UK’s largest union were instructed to abstain, meaning that the eventual vote (which was always going to be by card) was won by a significant majority that does not reflect conference’s feeling on the individual rule changes or the manner in which they were presented."
vi) The Brecon CLP resolution states: "Mr Lillis and the CAC chair dismissed demands that the rules of the Labour Party be followed, insisting on only a show of hands – even when a member of the NEC itself, Christine Shawcroft(sic), spoke..."
vii) since calling a meeting of the 33 member NEC is an available option to any 35 member group to resolve this dispute, there is no legitimacy to claims that junior party units should be bound by the actions of an unlawfully generated and therefore illegitimate 35 member NEC for any period until the 35 member group does so and the 33 member NEC group ratifies the alleged validity of the 35 member group.
viii) The CAC chairman's claim to conference that the NEC had agreed upon the single vote on the entire package of constitutional changes misled conference. Peter Willsman, a man of unparalleled experience in the party, specifies in his CLPD publications that this agreement did not happen at the NEC.
ix) Garston and Halewood CLP, along with other CLPs have passed motions declaring no confidence in Iain McNicol, the General Chief of party staff following exclusions and suspensions that offer no due process and frequently no evidence and appear to be motivated to deny party members a vote in the leadership election. Mr McNicol serves at the pleasure of the NEC which has the power to terminate his service to them and his control of the party staff. As such this is yet another sign that trust between the party membership and the outgoing NEC is utterly destroyed due to recent and historic events.
x) Garston and Halewood rejected the argument that they should focus on taking the fight to the tories and forget the historic behaviour of the labour party on the grounds that since these abuses undermine trust in the party, it will dramatically undermine enthusiasm to see a labour victory and for members to actively participate in Labour party internal decision-making or external recruitment or other Labour party activities.
xi) Adding 2 additional unelected members to the NEC would mean reducing the representation of the bulk of the labour party- its now more than half a million labour members- to less than 18% of the NEC.
xii) These are the most important motions in the recent history of labour, since they relate to a contitutional amendment that changes the supreme ruling executive body. No violation could be more important other than one replacing conference with the NEC.
MOTION 5 BEGINS
No reasonable person would conclude that a party that breaches its own rules to alter its supreme executive body is democratic in any reasonable sense of the term. If the breach of Labour rules during the combination of constitutional changes including adding unelected members to the NEC is not corrected, therefore, no reasonable person can believe Labour is a democratic party.
This BLP resolves to give the new, 33 member lawfully constituted NEC and conference a three month period in which to rectify this problem in a lawful manner before terminating its participation in promotion of any publicity referring to the Labour party as "democratic".
MOTION 5 ENDS
MOTION 1 BEGINS
This BLP/CLP resolves that:-
Video evidence from the Labour Party's own youtube channel provided at an internet address bit.ly/2fjvUsa during the first 90 minutes shows events surrounding a vote to reference back the Conference Arrangements Committee report. The report being voted upon described and entered into record the alleged authorisation by conference of a single vote on a large package of many constitutional changes. One of these proposed constitutional amendments had the effect of adding 2 unelected representatives to the National Executive Committee. A "reference back" essentially means conference rejects the report until edits are made to the report to satisfy conference.
At 31:25 - 34:00 in the video several delegates from the floor can be heard calling for a card vote. Chapter 3 Clause 3 Rule 3 of the Labour 2016 rules requires that "Voting at Party conference on resolutions, reports, amendments, proposals and references back shall be by show of hands or, when the conditions laid down by the CAC require it, by card.". The CAC pecified in its earlier report that "votes at Conference are taken as a show of hands unless a card vote is requested by delegates or by the decision of the Chair." The failure to hold a card vote at this time is therefore a breach of the Labour party constitution. The video also shows that Mr Lillis violated this rule despite attention being drawn to the fact by dozens of people on the conference floor and representations by an NEC member, Christine Shawcroft, and the reference back motion mover, Manuel Cortes.
Video evidence therefore demonstrates conclusively that during conference conference chair Paddy Lillis violated the Labour party constitution during voting on the CAC report in question. This violation came during a vote which denied conference a later opportunity to vote on constitutional changes seperately. The votes denied included changes to the composition of the Labour's supreme executive body.
If this motion is passed at a BLP (Branch Labour Party) then the BLP resolves that the BLP secretary shall pass this motion to the CLP secretary at the earliest opportunity to be moved there and mandates any delegates to the CLP to move, second and vote for the motion at that time. If passed at CLP, then the CLP resolves that the motion shall be passed to the CLP representatives on the NEC and to the 33 member NEC for motion there.
MOTION 1 ENDS
MOTION 2 BEGINS
Paddy Lillis was the conference chair on Tuesday morning at Labour conference 2016. Mr Lillis actions are shown on the video of the 2016 Tuesday morning conference found at bit.ly/2fjvUsa . During this video, Mr Lillis holds a vote to ratify the report which included the alleged passing of a motion to combine several constitutional amendments into one vote. He is shown during the video violating party rules by denying a card vote to many delegates demanding one on the "reference back" of the report. Qualified barrister Duncan Shipley Dalton LL.B(Hons) LL.M CPLS MPA (Harvard) Barrister-at-Law (no longer practicing) stated, in excerpts from the opinion provided at goo.gl/hDmeGV:-
a) "The failure to take a card vote means the bundling motion was in my view invalidly declared passed."
b) "There is no good reason why a card vote was not held on the bundling motion and the failure to comply with the conference standing orders and therefore the party rules may be contractually legally invalid and arguably the bundled rules that were put by motion to conference for card vote that changed the rules are invalid."
This meeting recognises that the Labour party rules provide and regulate the legal relationship between members of the party and the party officers. This meeting therefore resolves that Mr Lillis acted unlawfully by denying a card vote he was required to provide. This meeting resolves therefore that no lawful process altered the rules with any of the amendments contained in the package of rule changes in question.
If this motion is passed at a BLP (Branch Labour Party) then the BLP resolves that the BLP secretary shall pass this motion to the CLP secretary at the earliest opportunity to be moved there and mandates any delegates to the CLP to move, second and vote for the motion at that time. If passed at CLP, then the CLP resolves that the motion shall be passed to the CLP representatives on the NEC and to the 33 member NEC for motion there.
MOTION 2 ENDS
MOTION 3 BEGINS
Brecon and Radnorshire CLP in Wales previously recognised a rule violation relating to a process which attempted to alter the Labour party constitution on Tuesday morning at conference 2016 by passing a motion drafted by Mike Sivier. Excerpts of which are displayed at web address goo.gl/XBZa09 . In part, the motion stated that:- “The decision to allow the rule changes cannot be allowed to stand as Labour Party voting rules were broken"... "As they stand, these rule changes are unenforceable and no party unit is obliged to abide by any decisions made under them." This BLP /CLP endorses these conclusions.
This BLP/CLP continues to recognise and be bound by the legitimate 33 member NEC as described by the 2016 rules which have not been, as of November 15th 2016, legitimately modified by any lawful process with reference to any NEC composition alteration. This meeting asserts that the 33 member NEC should be called by the General Secretary or by individual members or by any lawful methodology in order to:-
i) appoint its own chair
ii) to call a special conference to meet and vote by card on the rule package and potentially, the individual rules in that package.
iii) in its dispute resolution capacity, to publicly declare the illegitimacy of the rule package and any resulting 35 member group until conference can meet and vote by card on the rule package.
iv) Appoint NEC subcommittees
v) Begin the administration of the Labour party immediately.
No clause of this motion instructs BLP or CLP officers to violate any element of the Labour party rules. Any clause of this motion which is found by conference, the courts or the 2016/2017 NEC as described by the unaltered 2015/2016 rules to be in direct violation of those rules shall nullify that clause of this motion and any logically dependent clauses causing them it to be of no validity recognition, force or value in any party unit. Clauses not logically dependent on any such nullified clause will remain an accurate representation of the positions and instructions of BLP / CLP which passed it.
If this motion is passed at a BLP (Branch Labour Party) then the BLP resolves that the BLP secretary shall pass this motion to the CLP secretary at the earliest opportunity to be moved there and mandates any delegates to the CLP to move, second and vote for the motion at that time. If passed at CLP, then the CLP resolves that the motion shall be passed to the CLP representatives on the NEC and to the 33 member NEC for motion there.
MOTION 3 ENDS
MOTION 4 BEGINS
This BLP / CLP resolves that a conference must be called at the earliest opportunity specifically to move and vote by card on the package of the multiple rules illegitimately created by an unlawful process at conference. If the packaging of the multiple rules is not ratified in the conference card vote, the same conference must hold card votes on the individual seperate rule changes contained in the package.
The Brecon CLP resolution states, regarding any vote on this issue:- “representatives of Welsh Labour and Scottish Labour to sit on the NEC ... have a conflict of interest and may not vote on it.”
Qualified barrister Duncan Shipley Dalton LL.B(Hons) LL.M CPLS MPA (Harvard) Barrister-at-Law (no longer practicing) stated, in an excerpt from the opinion provided at goo.gl/hDmeGV:-
"There is also the concern that if the Rule changes made by conference in 2016 are constitutionally and thus contractually invalid any reliance on them might be ultra vires. So potentially decisions made by the NEC become ultra vires on the basis that it is improperly constituted, though this might only be the case where the voting margin was fewer than 2."
This BLP/CLP endorses both of these statements.
If this motion is passed at a BLP (Branch Labour Party) then the BLP resolves that the BLP secretary shall pass this motion to the CLP secretary at the earliest opportunity to be moved there and mandates any delegates to the CLP to move, second and vote for the motion at that time. If passed at CLP, then the CLP resolves that the motion shall be passed to the CLP representatives on the NEC and to the 33 member NEC for motion there.
MOTION 4 ENDS
APPENDIX A:- SUPPLEMENTARY EVIDENCE
i) There is a critical and alarming video named "Annual Conference 2016 - Tuesday Morning" which is, at the time of writing, visible on Labour's youtube channel. The video shows Paddy Lillis, Conference and NEC chair, violate the Labour party rules when passing a report which attempted to alter the voting process to add unelected representatives to the National Executive Committee. The national executive committee is the supreme executive power inside Labour. Labour rules dictate that conference is the Labour party's sovereign body. This video undermines that belief and suggests that the conference chair or NEC chair can now overrule conference simply by ignoring delegates and the rules constraining the chair. The video is named "Annual Conference 2016 - Tuesday Morning". At the time this motion is drafted, the video is visible at this web address:- bit.ly/2fjvUsa . The first 90 minutes of the video show events surrounding a vote to reference back the Conference Arrangements Committee report. A reference back vote means a vote to reject the report until edits are made to satisfy conference. It then shows Christine Shawcroft rising to alert Paddy to the calls for a card vote. Paddy again overrules this and many other calls for a card vote and subsequently carries out a show of hands vote to accept the report, ignoring the motion to reference back.
ii) Manuel Cortes then rises to highlight the fact that the rules have just been broken. At 43:55-44:15 in the same video Leigh Drennan rises to quote from the relevant part of the CAC voting conditions which the chair is required by the rules to follow.
iii) At 26:10-26:56 in the same video is a delegate who came to speak on the stage. This delegate claimed that similar votes on previous days motions relating to the packaging of multiple rules for a single vote by conference were voted on by a show of hands and were too close to call and uncertain.
iv) A card vote is specifically designed to address this lack of certainty when a show of hands vote occurs. Paddy implies this during his spoken attempts to defend his rule violation from the platform.
v) The Brecon CLP motion states “On Sunday, September 25, Mr Lillis refused calls by members for a proper debate and ballot on each individual NEC rule change and called a vote by a simple show of hands on the Conference Arrangements Committee’s report, that said the NEC’s proposals would be packaged as one ‘take it or leave it’ bundle. Forcing the vote to be by show of hands only meant there was no proper oversight. Although the numbers of hands for and against were clearly closely-matched, Mr Lillis called out “overwhelmingly carried” and moved on, ignoring demands that he abide by the rules and carry out a card vote that would be properly monitored and counted. If a single delegate requests a card vote, then it must take place, so this was a clear breach of the voting rules."
vi) Qualified barrister Duncan Shipley Dalton LL.B(Hons) LL.M CPLS MPA (Harvard) Barrister-at-Law (no longer practicing) stated in part in an as yet unconfirmed email communication:- "The failure to take a card vote means the bundling motion was in my view invalidly declared passed."
"There is no good reason why a card vote was not held on the bundling motion and the failure to comply with the conference standing orders and therefore the party rules may be contractually legally invalid and arguably the bundled rules that were put by motion to conference for card vote that changed the rules are invalid."
"There is also the concern that if the Rule changes made by conference in 2016 are constitutionally and thus contractually invalid any reliance on them might be ultra vires. So potentially decisions made by the NEC become ultra vires on the basis that it is improperly constituted, though this might only be the case where the voting margin was fewer than 2."
vii) I have personally met with witnesses to the vote on the Sunday who say that the vote at this time was very close AND that at this point, even before the Tuesday record, calls for a card vote on this motion of supreme importance were ignored.
===
APPENDIX B:- SUPPORTING ARGUMENTS
i) Most of these rule changes were popular but two changes added unelected members to Labours supreme executive body and were hugely divisive and hotly contested during the NEC meeting which forwarded to conference.
ii) This hotly controversial rule change was added at short notice a few days before it was voted on at conference.
iii) Kate Lewis, Salford and Eccles CLP asserted during the video that a special conference should be held specifically to analyse and idscuss the individual constitutional changes.
iv) The Brecon CLP motion calls on the NEC “to nullify the recent vote at party conference on a package of 15 rule changes, including the addition of Welsh Labour and Scottish Labour representatives to the NEC, on the grounds that Mr Paddy Lillis, who was chairing the conference at the time of the vote, prevented members from voting on the changes in the proper manner."
v) The Brecon CLP resolution referring to the Tuesday vote states that: “The show of hands was again hard to judge, but Mr Lillis simply said it was clearly carried. The vote then took place in the early afternoon. Because the Unite union had a number of rule changes it wanted included in the bundle, delegates from the UK’s largest union were instructed to abstain, meaning that the eventual vote (which was always going to be by card) was won by a significant majority that does not reflect conference’s feeling on the individual rule changes or the manner in which they were presented."
vi) The Brecon CLP resolution states: "Mr Lillis and the CAC chair dismissed demands that the rules of the Labour Party be followed, insisting on only a show of hands – even when a member of the NEC itself, Christine Shawcroft(sic), spoke..."
vii) since calling a meeting of the 33 member NEC is an available option to any 35 member group to resolve this dispute, there is no legitimacy to claims that junior party units should be bound by the actions of an unlawfully generated and therefore illegitimate 35 member NEC for any period until the 35 member group does so and the 33 member NEC group ratifies the alleged validity of the 35 member group.
viii) The CAC chairman's claim to conference that the NEC had agreed upon the single vote on the entire package of constitutional changes misled conference. Peter Willsman, a man of unparalleled experience in the party, specifies in his CLPD publications that this agreement did not happen at the NEC.
ix) Garston and Halewood CLP, along with other CLPs have passed motions declaring no confidence in Iain McNicol, the General Chief of party staff following exclusions and suspensions that offer no due process and frequently no evidence and appear to be motivated to deny party members a vote in the leadership election. Mr McNicol serves at the pleasure of the NEC which has the power to terminate his service to them and his control of the party staff. As such this is yet another sign that trust between the party membership and the outgoing NEC is utterly destroyed due to recent and historic events.
x) Garston and Halewood rejected the argument that they should focus on taking the fight to the tories and forget the historic behaviour of the labour party on the grounds that since these abuses undermine trust in the party, it will dramatically undermine enthusiasm to see a labour victory and for members to actively participate in Labour party internal decision-making or external recruitment or other Labour party activities.
xi) Adding 2 additional unelected members to the NEC would mean reducing the representation of the bulk of the labour party- its now more than half a million labour members- to less than 18% of the NEC.
xii) These are the most important motions in the recent history of labour, since they relate to a contitutional amendment that changes the supreme ruling executive body. No violation could be more important other than one replacing conference with the NEC.
MOTION 5 BEGINS
No reasonable person would conclude that a party that breaches its own rules to alter its supreme executive body is democratic in any reasonable sense of the term. If the breach of Labour rules during the combination of constitutional changes including adding unelected members to the NEC is not corrected, therefore, no reasonable person can believe Labour is a democratic party.
This BLP resolves to give the new, 33 member lawfully constituted NEC and conference a three month period in which to rectify this problem in a lawful manner before terminating its participation in promotion of any publicity referring to the Labour party as "democratic".
MOTION 5 ENDS