I’m very fortunate to be in a position to write this post without sounding bitter. I noticed a number of flaws with the NEC election process during the last couple of months of campaigning. Fortunately, as I was successful, I now have the opportunity to voice those concerns.
I’ll start with the major issues. The NEC elections are skewed massively in favour of those from large constituencies, and the majority of voters vote for their local candidate as opposed to the person who they believe will best represent the views of the members. They are also weighted towards members of the Parliamentary Labour Party or their staff, who have greater access to the membership database. And they are weighted towards constituencies who have sitting TDs or Senators, who can provide Oireachtas envelopes or colour printing to their local candidates. Each of these problems needs to be addressed separately.
Constituencies with large numbers of members can usually elect a candidate of their own quite securely, with little or no external support. Perhaps that is as it should be, as people in these constituencies clearly believe that electing a local representative is the best way of securing their own interests. However, I would argue that protecting the interests of any particular constituency is anathema to the spirit in which the NEC was created. Our National Executive Committee should be interested in development of the party as a whole, and representative of the politics, ambitions and needs of all of our members. It should not be concerned with redirecting party resources to the constituencies of NEC members.
I do not believe that members of the PLP should be allowed seek direct election to the NEC. That is not a comment on the abilities of PLP members who have sought direction in the past, but reflects my concern at the ability of the PLP to occasionally dominate the voices of the membership. That Chairperson, Leader, Deputy Leader and Party President are all members of the PLP, and the PLP get two additional representatives of their own to the NEC. The two additional members of the Management Sub-Committee are often also members of the PLP, and get attendance and speaking rights at NEC meetings. That’s a possible 8 PLP voices at the NEC table – more than enough in my view (on a side point, with our number of councillors rapidly rising, I believe Labour Councillors should also get to nominate 2 members to the NEC, as opposed to the current 1). However, even boyond my objection to members of the NEC seeking direct election, there is a larger issue with members of the PLP and/or PLP staff seeking direct election, and that is the potential for unfair advantage. During this NEC campaign, all candidates were furnished with a list of envelope labels for all branch secretaries, constituency secretaries, PLP members and councillors. However, those employed/formerly employed in Leinster House were able to get the names and addresses of all delegates to Party Conference – a massive advantage over the rest of us. We need to set about to better prevent such unfair advantages in future.
The third issue is then with candidates who have access to a local TD or Senator. I was very fortunate to have the backing of several members of the PLP. However, as these members were not in my local area, they felt unable to back me publicly, and could therefore provide little in the way of resources. Other candidates had the advantage of availing of free postage (through Oireachtas envelopes) and colour printing, while candidates without this advantage were forced to pay for such items.
The recent NEC elections went some way towards turning the system on it’s head. Myself, Paul Dillon, Marie Sherlock, Mary Quinn and Brendan Carr were all elected to the NEC despite having relatively low support bases from which to work. However, the work that went into those campaigns was vastly beyond the work that was required from other candidates who enjoyed the advantages of large home constituencies. And by work, I mean travelling, financial investment, phonecalls, countless meetings, letter writing, leaflet drafting……
Now, that’s over 700 words on things that are wrong with the system (and I could easily go on), so I want to start making some suggestions for improvements. These are open to debate and discussion, but I would like to move towards presenting a new proposal on NEC elections to the next motion-based Conference, and I think the best time to start drafting such a motion is in the immediate aftermath of an election, when the flaws of the current system remain fresh in our minds.
1. Members of the PLP will not be permitted to stand for direct election to the NEC
2. All candidates will be invited to submit 500 words outlining their election manifesto, along with one photograph to Head Office, one month in advance of National Conference. These will be compiled into one booklet, and distributed along with the finalised motions for Party Conference.
3. Each candidate will be invited to become a member of the Online Members’ Forum, and participate in debate through that avenue.
4. Head Office will organise a series of Regional hustings to which all candidates will be invited. This will enable members to have access to the party membership, and limit the need for candidates to attend multiple branch and constituency meetings.
5. Once the delegate list is finalised, each candidate will be provided with a list of email addresses for all delegates. Candidates will be forbidden from posting letters seeking support to individual delegates. This will allow equal access to the membership to all candidates, and will also reduce the enormous amounts of paper wasted on NEC campaigns.
6. No leaflets will be permitted in the Conference Hall under any circumstances.
7. Leafletting of party members will be permitted outside the Conference Hall on Friday evening of Conference, and until opening of polls on Saturday. Once polls have opened, no further leaflets may be distributed.
8. Voting will take place in an appropriately sized room, closed off from all main areas of congregation. Only those with validly stamped delegate cards will be permitted entry to this room.
9. Voting will take place by secret ballot, and no member will be permitted to check/observe the voting of another.
10. Counting of NEC ballots will take place using the Seanad methods, with the gender quota applied only at the end of the count.
So, they are the 10 steps that I would propose to begin a debate on how we should overhaul the system. And an appropriate way for this blog to end. I’ll post a link to the new one once it exists, but for now I’ll say goodbye, and thanks for reading!
