Today at #Lab21 conference will debate the rules for electing Keir Starmer's successor.
This has been a damaging spectacle over the last few days, but the consequences of today's vote could be more damaging to the party in the long term ... 🧵
This has been a damaging spectacle over the last few days, but the consequences of today's vote could be more damaging to the party in the long term ... 🧵
The first thing to note is that the original proposals to revert to a less democratic electoral college have been withdrawn, after a huge backlash
To focus on internal politics at this time is misjudged. To do it incompetently ...
To focus on internal politics at this time is misjudged. To do it incompetently ...
https://twitter.com/rafaelbehr/status/1441661007827374083?s=20
The proposals being debated today keep OMOV but would change the rules in the following ways
-Raise threshold of MP nominations from 10% to 20% (currently c.40 MPs)
-Ditch registered supporters
-Freeze date for members 6 months prior to start of contest (new members can’t vote)
-Raise threshold of MP nominations from 10% to 20% (currently c.40 MPs)
-Ditch registered supporters
-Freeze date for members 6 months prior to start of contest (new members can’t vote)
First, MP threshold change: explicitly briefed as excluding a left-wing candidate (I'm not so sure!), cos the right aren't confident of winning an argument.
But it also risks excluding women/BAME candidates who have historically received fewer nominations
But it also risks excluding women/BAME candidates who have historically received fewer nominations
https://twitter.com/labourlewis/status/1441697618485207040?s=20
On registered supporters:
In 2015, 112,000 registered (paying £3 each) generating £336,000
In 2016, over 120,000 registered supporters (paying £25 each) generated £3m
In 2020, 13,000 registered (£25 each again) generating £325,000
Many later joined as members, paying £ms more
In 2015, 112,000 registered (paying £3 each) generating £336,000
In 2016, over 120,000 registered supporters (paying £25 each) generated £3m
In 2020, 13,000 registered (£25 each again) generating £325,000
Many later joined as members, paying £ms more
Why would you want to lose this revenue? Especially when the party needs money. We've lost 120,000 members since Keir became leader, leading to mass staff redundancies
We've lost the last 4 elections. Losing revenue, losing members, losing staff is not a winning formula
We've lost the last 4 elections. Losing revenue, losing members, losing staff is not a winning formula
Finally the freeze date:
Excluding new members by putting in a freeze date before a leadership contest will lose even more revenue.
People join to vote; they join because a candidate inspires them.
Why not “open our doors and reach new people” as Ed Miliband said in 2014?
Excluding new members by putting in a freeze date before a leadership contest will lose even more revenue.
People join to vote; they join because a candidate inspires them.
Why not “open our doors and reach new people” as Ed Miliband said in 2014?
Final point: if you think Labour doesn't need a mass membership and can rely on big donors, I think you're delusional.
1. Big donors want a return on investment. If they don't think you're going to be in Govt (polling suggests not currently) they won't donate
2. They're fickle.
1. Big donors want a return on investment. If they don't think you're going to be in Govt (polling suggests not currently) they won't donate
2. They're fickle.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
