Murphy's memory

THE Scottish Labour leadership contest has put a focus on the bizarre system used for the election.

Equal weight is given to three different sized parts of an unwieldy “electoral college”:  parliamentarians; party members; and affiliated trade unions and socialist societies.

In practice, the college means the vote of one MSP is equal to the votes of 168 party members.

However, leadership frontrunner Jim Murphy has made the bold claim that this will be the “last time” the college is used in Scotland.

At a lunch last week with Sunday journalists, he was asked whether the party Review he and leadership rival Sarah Boyack conducted in 2011 had recommended ending the college.

His reply: “And the Scottish Labour party’s agreed to it, but it just wasn’t implemented in time."

He added: "The Review didn't come up with the detail, but the idea was for it to be implemented."

I think Murphy has got this wrong: the Murphy-Boyack review did NOT back the abolition of the college.

I understand there was a recommendation to tweak the college by reducing the votes of parliamentarians, trade unions and members to 30% each, and giving councillors the remaining 10%.

According to a piece in the Times in 2011, the proposal was axed by the party's governing body.

As one senior party source told me: “There is no mention whatsoever in the 2011 Review of ending the electoral college, certainly not one of the recommendations.”

The insider added: “No change has been approved.”

Of course, the college has been phased out for future UK leadership elections.

One-member-one-vote was approved this year at a special UK conference, but the reform did not extend to Scottish contests as the rules are devolved.

The bottom line is that the Scottish party has not scrapped the college and its own conference would have to approve of changes to the franchise.

However, when I put this to Murphy last week, he repeated his line:

“The Scottish Labour party already agreed to make these changes."

He added: “The unions voted for it north and south of the border”.

Murphy may have to revisit this view and, if he crowned leader on Saturday, his first meeting of the party’s Scottish Executive should be interesting.

Generation game

A by-product of the indyref is that promises made by the pro-Union parties are being put under the microscope.

The Vow, published in the Daily Record and which committed its signatories to “extensive” new powers for Holyrood, has now taken shape in the form of the Smith Commission report.

However, it was not just the pro-Union side that made commitments during the campaign.

For years, the SNP answered the charge that a referendum would turn into a neverendum by saying that a plebiscite was a one-off event.

Or, more precisely, a “once-in-a-generation” event.

A newspaper cuttings search shows how this promise has been gradually altered and watered down.

In April 2007, days before the SNP defeated Scottish Labour in that month’s Holyrood election, Alex Salmond left himself little wriggle room:

"In my view it's a once in a generation thing. 

"There was a referendum on devolution in 1979 and then the next referendum on devolution was in 1997 and that seems to me to be the overwhelming likelihood." 

 

In other words, the gap between two independence polls would be 18 years.

In 2008, by which time the SNP was running the Government, the then deputy First Minister Nicola Sturgeon echoed her leader’s position: “My view is a referendum is a once-in-a-generation event.

Four years later, after SNP MSP Sandra White said a second referendum could quickly follow the first, Salmond’s spokesman held the line:

"As the First Minister has made clear on many occasions, the referendum is a once-in-a-generation opportunity."

By February 2014, the position began to shift.

In an article on an independence event in Dundee, the Daily Record reported Sturgeon defining “generation” as around 15 years, down from the original 18.

Salmond also said the 1979-1997 analogy was now the "sort of time period" in which a second referendums take place.

The terminology was tweaked again in June, with Salmond telling a daily newspaper: "A referendum on the constitution is once in a political generation."

He repeated “political generation” – a phrase without any fixed meaning – several times and moved further away from his 2007 formulation on the Marr show by adding that it was “just my opinion”.

Post-referendum, where stands the original commitment?

As he announced his intention to quit as First Minister, Salmond did not mention a “political generation”, but referred to the result as moving the “base camp” of independence closer to the summit.

Sturgeon has also moved beyond the‘g’ word, instead repeating a new line that she is not “planning” another referendum.

In these fevered political times, it may be an idea to hold the feet of both sides to the fire.

Labour leadership row: party responds

I've blogged recently on the controversy surrounding the running of the Scottish Labour leadership contest involving Jim Murphy, Sarah Boyack and Neil Findlay.

The ballot packs sent to members only included the nominations each candidate received from parliamentarians - endorsements that heavily favoured Murphy. No trade union or constituency party nominations were listed.

Critics believe the document gives the impression that Murphy has way more support than the other candidates.

Findlay has asked his party for clarification, as has Unite official Pat Rafferty.

Acting General Secretary Fiona Stanton has now explained the position in an email to party members. Here is an extract:

"There have been a couple of issues raised about the content of the Candidates Booklet circulated with the Ballot Packs which were despatched this week. I wanted to contact you all to explain the logistics and the issues involved.
The candidate booklets contain the candidates statements, contact details and also detail the nominations made by parliamentarians but they do not include details of the supporting nominations made separately by Councillors, CLPs and Affiliates. Unfortunately, the timing meant it was impossible to include supporting nominations in the Candidates booklet. Although the timetable is as close as possible to that in 2011, there was significantly less time for producing the candidates booklet between having validly nominated candidates and the ballots being despatched.
In order to be able to get them printed and with ERS in time for despatching the ballots, the candidate booklet went to print on Wednesday 5th November. This was the day after the deadline for MPs, MSPs and MEP nominations and we included everything we could on candidates at that stage- not just the words they had provided but also their contact details from the website, and their nominations from parliamentary colleagues.  The deadline for supporting nominations from Councillors, CLPs and Affiliates was Friday 14 November at 2pm. There was unfortunately no way those could go in the booklet as it went to print 9 days earlier." 

More Labour woes...

THE row over the running of the Scottish Labour leadership contest is now getting serious.

Pat Rafferty, the top Scottish official in Unite the Union - Labour's biggest donor - has written to UK party general secretary Iain McNicol about the ballot process.

A press release containing his letter has just been circulated. Here it is:

“As you know, the trade unions and affiliated organisations will play a vital role in the election of the new leader and deputy for Scotland. So you can imagine my surprise when I looked at the candidate election booklet to find that my unions’ nomination, along with all the other trade unions had been omitted from the publicity material. This strikes me as a gross error of judgement.”

The letter goes on to say:

“To intentionally or otherwise exclude the nominations of the trades unions feels disrespectful to all trade union members in Scotland and the role they will play in rejuvenating the party here.”

In the Unite press statement, Rafferty also said:

“It’s extremely disappointing that as an integral part of the Labour Party our nominations have been excluded from the publicity material for the elections sent to all members. We are urgently seeking clarification from the Labour Party to find out why this has happened and if needs be will join other unions and affiliated organisations in making a formal complaint."

"Unless the party deals with this situation urgently then they will stand accused of trying to skew this election for their favoured candidates.”

Row over Labour leadership contest deepens

YESTERDAY I blogged on the internal row raging inside the Scottish Labour party over the running of its leadership contest.

A key issue is the candidates' booklet sent to party members. It contains a list of nominations for all the candidates, but only endorsements from parliamentarians.

These nominations favour Jim Murphy more than Neil Findlay or Sarah Boyack. Trade union and CLP endorsements have not been included.

Here is Mr Findlay's press release, which he has just put out. Italics are mine:

"Neil Findlay MSP is to seek clarification from the Labour Party over the information being provided to members with their Leadership ballot papers.
 The booklet detailing the candidate statement it contains only a list of nominations from Parliamentarians. It makes no mention of supporting nominations from Constituency Labour Parties, trade Unions or socialist societies.
 Many CLP’s and trade unions held special events in order to make a nomination.   Over the last 24 hours I have been made aware of a deep frustration from local Labour Party branches and affiliated organisations that their nominations for the leadership campaign have been excluded from the candidates booklet.
 I view all parts of our Labour Party as equal so I am surprised that Only MPs and MSPs nominations have been included. It is insulting given the effort and expense members, CLP’s Trade Union’s and socialistsocieties went to organise special meetings and consultation events, only to be ignored as seemingly inconsequential.
 I am contacting the Labour Party today to find out why this has happened and what they can do to fix this."

Scottish Labour tensions, part 54

A big row is brewing over the running of the Scottish Labour leadership contest -  a controversy that has reached UK party general secretary Iain McNicol.

To recap, three candidates – Jim Murphy MP and MSPs Neil Findlay and Sarah Boyack – are facing off in the party’s rather odd electoral college.

The college is split into three equal sized chunks and gives the same weight of vote to a) affiliated trade unions/socialist societies b) parliamentarians and c) ordinary party members.

The source of the tension is that the Scottish party’s Procedures Committee has decided that the vote of the parliamentarian section (80 strong) should not be private.

Put simply, each vote cast by an MSP, MP and MEP will be published.

In the 2011 Scottish Labour leadership election, all sections of the college were governed by secret ballots. What does this change mean in practice?

A majority of parliamentarians have declared for one of three candidates, with most plumping for the frontrunner Murphy.

Others have kept quiet, such as big hitters like Johann Lamont, Margaret Curran, Anas Sarwar and Gordon.

The party rethink means there will be no hiding place for any of the elected members, some of whom I am told are "absolutely furious.”

One insider said the decision benefits Murphy.

MPs and MSPs who may have been tempted to cast a private ballot for Findlay may now think twice.

Why? If Murphy wins, casting a public vote against him may not be the greatest career move.

Another issue is the ballot paper sent to party members this week.

A booklet containing each candidate’s pitch and nominations was also included in the pack.

However, the nominations in the pack related only to parliamentarians, the bulk of whom are backing Murphy.

Trade union and constituency party nominations – a large number of which have gone to Findlay – were not included.

Ordinary party members reading the nominations are left with the impression that Murphy has way more nominations than his rival.

My insider said: “Folk are seething. It's a shambles."

It is understood trade union general secretaries have complained directly to McNicol.

A Scottish Labour spokesman told me the decision to publish the votes of MSPs, MPs and MEPs was to “encourage transparency”.

As of 19.30 this evening, no candidate has put in a formal complaint. Yet.

College craziness

THE ballot process begins today to select a new leader of the Scottish Labour party.

Although the party’s “electoral college” is being replaced for UK contests, the old 1980s system remains in Scotland.

As one Labour contact put it to me recently: “If Martians were to land in Glasgow tomorrow, you’d be hard pressed explaining the logic of this system to them”.

There are three parts of the college, all given equal weight: one third of the votes goes to affiliated trade unions and socialist societies; one third to parliamentarians; and the final chunk to ordinary party members.

Much of the scrutiny is concentrated on the affiliate section.

All individuals who pay a union’s political levy – Unison has a slightly different system – will be issued with a leadership ballot paper.

The problem is that not everyone who pays into a union political fund will be a Labour supporter, far less a member.

In an attempt to close this loophole, all levy payers get a form with their ballot paper which they must sign for their vote to count.

It reads: “I support the principles and values of the Labour Party, am not a supporter of any organisation opposed to it and pay a political subscription that issued this ballot paper.”

However, given that it is a secret ballot, it is impossible to enforce this ‘honesty box’ system. Anyone who receives a ballot could sign the eligibility form and vote in the contest. This section could accurately be described as no-member-one-vote.

Trade union participation in previous elections is also far from a great advert for democracy.

In UK Labour’s 2010 leadership contest, 2.7m ballots were sent to members of affiliated unions.

Of these, 234,000 were returned –  a miserable 8.7% turnout.

Another 15% of the 234,000 ballots were deemed to be spoilt, meaning the turnout in terms of valid votes cast was closer to 7%.

Perhaps a bigger injustice is the weight of vote given to Scottish Labour’s MSPs, MPs and MEPs (councillors are excluded). 

The votes of these 80 or so parliamentarians are of equal value to the near 13,500 party members who pay subs.

Put another way, the vote of an MP is the equivalent of the votes of 168 members.

In the 2011 Scottish Labour leadership contest, Ken Macintosh MSP won around 53% of votes cast by party members.

The eventual winner, Johann Lamont, won fewer than 40% of party members, but still won the contest after the first round of voting.

According to a well-placed party source, such a system raises the obvious question: “Why should anyone join the Scottish Labour party?”

If you do sign up, your vote in leadership contests is deemed 168 times less worthy than a ballot cast by a parliamentarian. 

And folk who are not even party members can easily participate in the same contest.

As the SNP outstrips Scottish Labour in membership by six-to-one, addressing this anomaly may be a top-order issue for any new leader.