Die Neue Zeit
19th December 2010, 02:12
http://www.suite101.com/content/how-does-the-uk-labour-party-elect-a-new-leader-a235765
The Bennite left in the Constituency Labour Parties (CLPs) pushed for fundamental reform in the Labour Party's internal democratic structures, calling for a role for Labour Party activists and for the trade unions in the selection of the party's leader and deputy leader. What was established was an electoral college, within which different sections of the party would have a proportion of the overall vote.
Calls for "One Member One Vote" were resisted at this time, partly because of the Parliamentary Labour Party's (PLP) right wing wishing to defend a substantial input from MPs, and partly from the argument that there were many more trade union members, paying their political levy to the Labour Party, than there were Labour Party members.
Debates raged over the proportions for each section in the electoral college. Initially the trade unions were given the largest slice of the cake, reflecting their larger membership (40, 30, 30), but the eventual decision was 33% each to the PLP, the CLPs and the affiliates (trade unions).
During 1917 in Russia, for example, there were both "party soviets" in some places which committed to a PR-form of organization and election (and of election of various committees); others, meanwhile, maintained an "organicist" (or even sometimes called "corporativist"!) "curial" form of organization, where the strict political representation was ignored in favor of delegates discretely and precisely being responsible to well-defined constituencies.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congress_of_People%27s_Deputies_of_the_Soviet_Unio n
750 deputies representing "public organizations", such as the Communist Party, Komsomol and the trade unions. The election law would allocate a fixed number of seats to organizations – for example, 100 to the Communist Party and 100 to Komsomol – and the organizations would appoint deputies to those seats.
About a week ago, I was flirting with the idea of having two well-defined, *non-overlapping* constituency associations "affiliate" with any sort of party-movement: an association for party members who are of the working poor, and an association for party members who are pensioners. This came about in spite of me knowing that the working poor and pensioners within the party would have more suffrage or voting power than other party members.
However, the word "corporativist" scared me off. Thoughts?
The Bennite left in the Constituency Labour Parties (CLPs) pushed for fundamental reform in the Labour Party's internal democratic structures, calling for a role for Labour Party activists and for the trade unions in the selection of the party's leader and deputy leader. What was established was an electoral college, within which different sections of the party would have a proportion of the overall vote.
Calls for "One Member One Vote" were resisted at this time, partly because of the Parliamentary Labour Party's (PLP) right wing wishing to defend a substantial input from MPs, and partly from the argument that there were many more trade union members, paying their political levy to the Labour Party, than there were Labour Party members.
Debates raged over the proportions for each section in the electoral college. Initially the trade unions were given the largest slice of the cake, reflecting their larger membership (40, 30, 30), but the eventual decision was 33% each to the PLP, the CLPs and the affiliates (trade unions).
During 1917 in Russia, for example, there were both "party soviets" in some places which committed to a PR-form of organization and election (and of election of various committees); others, meanwhile, maintained an "organicist" (or even sometimes called "corporativist"!) "curial" form of organization, where the strict political representation was ignored in favor of delegates discretely and precisely being responsible to well-defined constituencies.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congress_of_People%27s_Deputies_of_the_Soviet_Unio n
750 deputies representing "public organizations", such as the Communist Party, Komsomol and the trade unions. The election law would allocate a fixed number of seats to organizations – for example, 100 to the Communist Party and 100 to Komsomol – and the organizations would appoint deputies to those seats.
About a week ago, I was flirting with the idea of having two well-defined, *non-overlapping* constituency associations "affiliate" with any sort of party-movement: an association for party members who are of the working poor, and an association for party members who are pensioners. This came about in spite of me knowing that the working poor and pensioners within the party would have more suffrage or voting power than other party members.
However, the word "corporativist" scared me off. Thoughts?