London Labour stitch-up
Originally scheduled for the end of February, the Greater London Labour Party conference finally took place over the weekend of 13/14 June.
It had been postponed unilaterally by General Secretary Terry Ashton. Claims that this was because a venue was not available were disproved at the time – rather it was because many resolutions opposed a directly-elected mayor for London.
Ashton, no doubt at the behest of the national party leadership, wanted to avoid the conference taking this position in advance of the May referendum.
Ashton then used the intervening period to attempt to change the rules of conference. Just as he failed to convince the regional executive of the wisdom of having a directly-elected mayor, they were not convinced that the conference should comprise workshops and only two resolutions decided by ballot.
The executive told him that any rules changes should be voted on by conference.
Lo and behold, Ashton ignored this, and sent out the new standing orders to CLPs and affiliates anyway. He also changed the basis of the election of the regional executive (renamed ‘board’), presumably in the hope of getting a more compliant set of people elected.
To prevent any immediate challenge to these standing orders, delegates were packed straight off to workshops to discuss bland policy documents.
When the conference finally convened in plenary session the chair, Jim Fitzpatrick (ex-FBU leftie, now MP) had to apologise for a series of omissions on the documents listing nominees for the new executive.
Unchastened however, he refused to put a reference back of the new standing orders to conference, which would have required a simple majority.
Instead, his ruling had to be challenged, a notoriously difficult vote to win, not just because it needs a two-thirds majority, but also because it is seen as disruptive.
When the result was finally announced some hours later, Fitzpatrick had scraped home. The challenge was reportedly supported by 65.59 per cent of the votes, including 86.7 per cent of those of the unions and affiliated societies. The fact that it is easy to check the votes of the unions but not the CLPs left delegates extremely suspicious of this result
The left more or less retained their strength on the regional executive, and the two motions the conference was allowed to discuss were passed overwhelmingly.
Candidate
The first defended the right of the London Labour Parties to have a resolution-based conference at least every two years, and the second (carried with only two votes against) supported the right of any London party member to be Labour’s candidate for mayor in an OMOV ballot. The latter was a signal that party members will not easily accept a dictat from the party leadership on who can stand for mayor.
The new standing orders meant that crucial resolutions on the privatisation of London Underground, cuts in the fire service and racism could not be discussed, although fringe meetings did discuss them.
The conference showed serious disquiet across the London Labour Party at the machinations of the leadership, while the Left is able to win key votes, but not yet strong enough to seriously disrupt the leadership’s plans.