Labour Conference 2012 remits

Written By: - Date published: 10:24 am, November 17th, 2012 - 81 comments
Categories: labour, Politics - Tags:

Especially for delegates (and me) to write comments on remits.

Very fast so far. Robert Gallagher who is chairing the movement appears to be enjoying himself. A welcome sight.

81 comments on “Labour Conference 2012 remits ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. lprent 1
    17 November 2012 at 10:30 am

    Comments on remits as they are and after they are passed please.

    Fantasy votes will be sent to open mike.

  2. lprent 2
    17 November 2012 at 10:38 am

    So far the only real topic of interest was on women’s representation on LECs. At least 50% of the officers, and since there are only 3 officers, an ability to appoint a executive committee – which many LEC’s will have.

    There was an amendment to put in the words “where practicable” which had some speakers.

    Mostly the amendments have been going through on simple voice vote. One show of hands.

  3. Te Reo Putake 3
    17 November 2012 at 10:46 am

    Excellent start so far. The layout of the room is unfortunate, as it prevents many delegates seeing the stage and makes the voice votes difficult to gauge. But the enthusiasm and humour shown so far is very, very encouraging. Biggest cheer so far? The anouncement that Samoa beat Wales in the rugby!

    • Saarbo 3.1
      17 November 2012 at 7:38 pm

      Crap, This just showed what a wanker Mallard is. There was no cheer.

      Mallard dressed in T Shirt also made another wankey comment later. Time to go, he adds nothing to Labour. Just an embarrassment.

  4. KhandallaMan 4
    17 November 2012 at 10:50 am

    It is getting hot here!
     

  5. lprent 5
    17 November 2012 at 10:51 am

    First counted hand vote on a rather remit about regional councils. Rule 106A

    It was originally raised as a response to a proposed change in how regions are organized, and asks that regions are organized by local organizations.

  6. lprent 6
    17 November 2012 at 11:41 am

    Ok Section H. Where the selection rule remits are.

    297A is up.

  7. IrishBill 7
    17 November 2012 at 11:52 am

    Don’t leave us hanging Lynn, what’s the debate at the moment? I heard there’s likely to be an attempt to amend it from the floor to delay the changes until 2014. Just a rumour?

    • lprent 7.1
      17 November 2012 at 12:03 pm

      Amendment part A of 55% trigger vote got voted down.

      Amendment B requiring a 50% of caucus plus one appears to have passed. But there a question about a simple 50% voting

      • lprent 7.1.1
        17 November 2012 at 12:03 pm

        Ok simple majority rules is required for a leadership contest

        Updated: Between elections.

      • lprent 7.1.2
        17 November 2012 at 12:09 pm

        Ok now moving to the post election leadership.

        The question up is the caucus vote after elections. Currently if 60% or 50% required leadership support in caucus to trigger a leadership election.

        • lprent 7.1.2.1
          17 November 2012 at 12:15 pm

          Mike Smith is up. He is arguing for a simple majority.

          • IrishBill 7.1.2.1.1
            17 November 2012 at 12:18 pm

            I’m surprised. It’s 20% in the UK and seems to work there. I think simple majority is too unstable as it means a leader can have a full half of his or her caucus against them and still lead.

            • lprent 7.1.2.1.1.1
              17 November 2012 at 12:27 pm

              I think that some of the delegates are about as confused as I am (I am a member of the I hate remits club). But it is getting raucous.

              The actual trigger is requiring the Leader to have 60% support after an election. If more than 40% of the caucus oppose it, then it goes to the party

        • IrishBill 7.1.2.2
          17 November 2012 at 12:16 pm

          It’s sixty to trigger a leadership vote at the moment and 50% + one to decide the leader from that vote.

  8. Te Reo Putake 8
    17 November 2012 at 12:15 pm

    Great tub thumping speech from Len Richards!

    ‘The members lost the party in the 1980’s, today we are taking it back!’

  9. Te Reo Putake 9
    17 November 2012 at 12:19 pm

    Andrew Little speaking in favour of 50%, Chris Flatt speaking in favour of 60%. Little is concerned that, in effect, 40% can ‘wag the dog’.

    • IrishBill 9.1
      17 November 2012 at 12:26 pm

      I’m surprised Flatt’s taken that position.

      edit: just realised the “60%” is 60% support required for the leader. That’s more like what I’d expect from Flatt.

      • lprent 9.1.1
        17 November 2012 at 12:33 pm

        I was confused as well. Now I understand what Len was talking about yesterday.

      • Te Reo Putake 9.1.2
        17 November 2012 at 12:40 pm

        Sorry, IB, should have clarified.

        Some great speeches, comes down to whether a minority of caucus can ‘overule’ the result and trigger a new vote. Mike Sweeney from the EPMU in favour of the 60%, saying that it gives life to the democracy we are looking to put in place. Maryann Street opposed, ‘tyranny of the minority’.

  10. lprent 10
    17 November 2012 at 12:32 pm

    Pat Newman is after the 60% as being clear and stabilising. If a leader can’t get that, then he thinks it makes it it too close and leadership questions arising.

    • lprent 10.1
      17 November 2012 at 12:40 pm

      Maryan Street arguing that 40% wagging the caucus. Best I have seen from that side.

      • lprent 10.1.1
        17 November 2012 at 12:43 pm

        Tat Loo saying that screwups in caucus will be corrected by members.

        Opposing side (missed the name) points out that it can happen after winning an election. Ummm doesn’t seem to happen in other countries.

        Lesley Soper after the 60% – interesting

  11. KhandallaMan 11
    17 November 2012 at 12:39 pm

    “The tail wagging the dog”

    The party is the “Dog”.  The Tail is the Caucus.  

    Little is denying the affiliates and the membership their voice. 

     

  12. lprent 12
    17 November 2012 at 12:52 pm

    Well that was civilised – voting on amendment C

  13. Te Reo Putake 13
    17 November 2012 at 12:55 pm

    Going to card vote. Looks like it’ll be 50% that wins.

    • lprent 13.1
      17 November 2012 at 1:04 pm

      Nope 60% got it 264 to 237

      • mickysavage 13.1.1
        17 November 2012 at 2:34 pm

        Good job. Hipkins and others argued it was less democratic to allow 40% of caucus to require full contest but I struggle to understand how having more full leadership votes makes it less democratic?

        It is only less democratic if only MPs votes count.

  14. Te Reo Putake 14
    17 November 2012 at 1:03 pm

    60% it is, the caucus don’t get their way on this one. 264 votes for 237 agin.

    edit: the indicitive hand vote seemed to go for 50%, but the card vote narrowly went for 60%.

    Righto, time for lunch, wonder what the vege options are!

  15. hush minx 15
    17 November 2012 at 1:15 pm

    i hope that the media are seeming the strength of the party lies more than just in the leaders office corridor. of course the real test will be the February vote and if it goes to 40.

  16. bomber 16
    17 November 2012 at 2:50 pm

    Incredible day for Labour Party

  17. lprent 17
    17 November 2012 at 3:06 pm

    297A Amendment E got voted down.
    Amendment D got voted in.

    40,40,20

    Voice votes.

  18. lprent 18
    17 November 2012 at 3:39 pm

    Amendment G and H dumped.

    Damn back to E

  19. lprent 19
    17 November 2012 at 3:39 pm

    Ok new rules in a leadership rules in Feb.

  20. lprent 20
    17 November 2012 at 3:41 pm

    Ok normal policy remits again…

  21. lprent 21
    17 November 2012 at 3:49 pm

    I am impressed with the conference so far. There is obviously a lot of agreement in what should be happening. Quite simply the hardest thing so far has actually been getting past the thicket of remits on the rules.

    • mickysavage 21.1
      17 November 2012 at 3:55 pm

      It is far more democratic and less stage managed than any I have been to.

      • Jim Nald - Once Was National 21.1.1
        17 November 2012 at 4:28 pm

        That is good to hear, and thanks for the many updates, lprent.

        Truly exciting and heart-warming to get a sense of the conference even though not being there.

        While Europe’s governance and economy is under a dark cloud, and the US is trying to find a way through after re-electing Obama, and with China having just presented new leaders in the open after arrangements made away from public and global eyes, a bright light begins to shine from these islands in the Pacific from the Labour Party conference.

        • lprent 21.1.1.1
          17 November 2012 at 7:20 pm

          Turns out I’m not that good at writing during Labour party conferences. I suspect it is because I know too many of the people and sitting behind I was able to have a pretty good view of half of them.

          Not to mention that the multiple amendments on amendments on remits were confusing the hell out of me (and just about everyone else) at one stage. Doesn’t a constitution have a compiler?

  22. KhandallaMan 22
    17 November 2012 at 3:58 pm

    A good robust civilised exchange of views and good chairing from Robert Gallagher has lead to a great outcome for the Labpur Party. 

    The membership now feel that their level of engagement in the leadership endorsement and selection processes is adequate.  

    A good conference.  

  23. Te Reo Putake 23
    17 November 2012 at 4:00 pm

    Conference has decided that there will be a vote on leadership next February. The present leader needs to get 60% plus one vote to avoid the matter being put to the whole party. During the debate, Trevor Mallard revealingly whined that ‘we’ve already had a leadership vote’. Actually, only the MP’s had a leadership vote. Now the rest of us get to have a say if Shearer can’t convince at least 22 MP’s to back him in February.

    I’d say Shearer is going to have to lift his game significantly or make some dead rat decisions about Cunliffe’s ranking in the team if he is still going to be leader at the next election. If its the latter, then Trevor Mallard’s influence in caucus will be significantly diminished.

    • Jim Nald - Once Was National 23.1
      17 November 2012 at 4:05 pm

      What is there to whine about or to be nervous or afraid of?

      A real leader in a democracy should neither hesitate nor fear to put his leadership to the test.

      • QoT 23.1.1
        17 November 2012 at 5:27 pm

        I agree, Jim – and yes, I know I’m biased, but it would be so much cooler if instead of Shearer baldly stating “Yes, I will be leader in 2014” he’d just eat a bit of humble pie and say “I would love to be leader in 2014, but that’s not my decision, it’s the decision of the whole Party and I support the democratic process, which is a far cry from what you see in some other political parties.”

    • KhandallaMan 23.2
      17 November 2012 at 4:16 pm

      Trevor did damage to what is left of his brand. His intervention was silly.  He seemed to think he could confuse others and swing the mood of the room. Instead he got a moan from the room.  
      Trevor will forever be associated with those who want to retain centralised power in the Caucus. 

      Ambassador to Nuie? 

    • Laurie 23.3
      17 November 2012 at 7:01 pm

      Now taking tshirt orders, FOT. The old guard should be mentoring new blood for the sake of the party not exerting bludgeon influence for personal motives. We’re all sick of it.

  24. hush minx 24
    17 November 2012 at 4:04 pm

    Why wait until February? The fact that the leadership and old guard failed to get their way tells me they do not have the support of the party. Let’s start fresh and harnesses the energy that has shone through at conference. Otherwise i fear there will be the same backroom deals done and time getting ready to take the fight to national is lost.

    • lprent 24.1
      17 November 2012 at 4:14 pm

      No reason to rush.

      Apart from anything else it is going to take some time to get the electoral system operating. It is going to be a postal vote to members – something that Labour haven’t done. Everything has been run previously using branches.

      There is a pretty good chance that a 40% vote will not be reached in caucus.

  25. hush minx 25
    17 November 2012 at 4:22 pm

    Ok I’ll try not to get carried away! Having said that, i would have thought there would be enough mps who think its best to front foot the fact that the leadership just lost the votes in quite a public way, and that shearer is short on time for proving himself. However your point that there isn’t the infrastructure yet is almost unassailable logic!

  26. Anne 26
    17 November 2012 at 5:20 pm

    I agree with all the comments thus far…

    It’s a fascinating conference. I was watching the body language of the various MPs during the debate on the leadership amendments. They fought hard in their corner, but to be fair to them they seemed to accept the outcome with graciousness. If I’m right, it augurs well for the future.

    I think it may have come as a surprise to some MPs just how angry the rank and file felt over the Dec. 2011 leadership battle, and it had it’s repercussion in today’s voting outcomes.

  27. Hilary 27
    17 November 2012 at 5:28 pm

    I’m not surprised things are going smoothly. The party president has a background as an educational psychologist and has worked with a diverse range of students over many years. She is a very skilled teacher and manager.

  28. karol 28
    17 November 2012 at 6:21 pm

    Bomber’s really fizzing about today’s events at the conference, but he doesn’t seem to know how to spell your name, Lynn.

  29. Anne 29
    17 November 2012 at 6:31 pm

    Right on cue… TV1 and TV2 are being their mischievous selves, and interpreting the electoral changes as a resurgence of war between the ABC club and the Cunliffe club. They are using it as supposed evidence that the electoral amendments (as passed) were part of a Cunliffe organised conspiracy.

    Total crap! L.P. members have felt sore for a long time now because, rightly or wrongly, it seemed to many of us that our views and concerns were being ignored by Caucus. The leadership battle last year merely brought it to the surface.

    • karol 29.1
      17 November 2012 at 6:50 pm

      Did you mean TV3, Anne?  As I understood Gower, he was more into talking up Labour being in disarray.  He ended his 6pm News report saying it is Key who will be the winner.

      He does report that Andrew Little is now admitting there are people concerned about Shearer’s leadership. 

      “Let’s name what some people are concerned about here, and it is contemporary anxiety about leadership,” says Labour MP Andrew Little.

      And yes, that was an admission – Mr Shearer’s leadership is being openly questioned.

      “[I have] got to acknowledge that’s how some people are feeling,” says Mr Little. “But that’s not a reason to put in a rule change that will cause instability.”
       

      So how about Little apologising and acknowledging that it wasn’t “anonymous bloggers” but a significant part of the membership? And how about Gower calling him and other Labour MPs on it?  

      It didn’t sound to me like Gower was saying the new rules were the result of a Cunliffe orchestrated conspiracy, but that Cunliffe is focused on being leader.

      • PlanetOrphan 29.1.1
        17 November 2012 at 6:58 pm

        Gower was putting words in mouths and churlishly flogging Cunliffe with an unsubstantiated question, is my read on it all Karol.

        I didn’t detect any question about leadership from any of the Labour party.

        If there was a majority decision for change I think all concerened would be happy to work in a new framework, no contention that I could see.

        • Raymond A Francis 29.1.1.1
          17 November 2012 at 7:09 pm

          I have to agree, talk about trying to be the news rather than reporting it
          Thanks to the above reports some of us know better

          • PlanetOrphan 29.1.1.1.1
            17 November 2012 at 7:12 pm

            True , Growers’ look of subservient fear at the end was a real givaway 👿

            If he’s serious about helping Aoteoroa he needs to lift his game considerably, assumptions do not cut it.

            • ianmac 29.1.1.1.1.1
              17 November 2012 at 7:22 pm

              I guess this is why the National Party play their cards pretty close over leadership. Otherwise weird ones like Gower see a chance to create a rift come challenge and stir up muddy waters.
              What a pity such a brave chap like Gower is unable to spread his poison amongst people like Key, Joyce, English.

        • Anne 29.1.1.2
          17 November 2012 at 7:21 pm

          Correct Planet O:
          I believe the majority of delegates who voted for the electoral changes did so with few thoughts of Shearer and Cunliffe in mind. This was something that went deeper than leadership contests. I listened to some of the people sitting around me, and they also felt that the time had come to reclaim the Labour Party as belonging as much to us (the members) as it does to Caucus.

          I reiterate what I said at 6:31pm. It was the usual MSM beat-up with little basis in fact! Nothing would delight the Gowers of this world more than to create a major conspiracy in the L.P. where none exists. Yes, I was also watching Gower at the conference – and who he was talking to… 🙂

          • karol 29.1.1.2.1
            17 November 2012 at 7:32 pm

            Oh, I agree Gower has been stirring it up the last couple of nights, in a way that works to undermine Labour.  He HAS focuseD on stirring up drama and sensationalism rather than focusing on the key issues.  

            Tonight, rather than focus on the shift to a more open and democratic organisation in the party, he tried to stir it up about divisions that will, according to Gower, benefit Key.   I didn’t, however, see anything in his report that suggest an orchestrated conspiracy.  It was more that he was beating up that Cunliffe was taking the opportunity to make a grab for power.

          • KJT 29.1.1.2.2
            18 November 2012 at 8:54 am

            I believe the Labour party membership. like most New Zealanders, are sick of a few people in parliament riding roughshod over the wishes and best interests of the rest of us.

            Hence the overwhelming popularity of any measures which increase citizen power/democracy and decrease that of parliament. Such as MMP, Referendums and control over party candidates.

            It is not so much who the caucus chose as leader, as the arrogant and self interested way they went about it.

  30. Anne 30
    17 November 2012 at 7:46 pm

    I didn’t, however, see anything in his report that suggest an orchestrated conspiracy. It was more that he was beating up that Cunliffe was taking the opportunity to make a grab for power.

    You maybe right Karol, but I did note a few of the people Gower was talking to and ummm, lets just say… I wonder why he came to such a conclusion. As for Cunliffe, it wouldn’t have mattered what he said, it was going to be mischievously interpreted.

    • KJT 30.1
      18 November 2012 at 8:59 am

      Just wait for the extended campaign by the RW part of the MSM against Cunliff leading up to February.

      That is his best recommendation. The RWNJ’s are terrified of him.

      They seem way to comfortable with Shearer.

Links to post