Tag Archives: Charter

Lansman and witch-hunting

Momentum has drafted a ‘Charter of members’ rights’, which promises to put an end to the deluge of unjustified suspensions from the party, writes Carla Roberts. But it does not oppose political expulsions and also leaves the compliance unit untouched

In an attempt to appear democratic, a few weeks back Momentum asked its members to “help us draft proposals for Labour Party democracy review (Corbyn review)” by submitting proposals and/or ‘nominating’ the one they preferred. The organisation’s most comprehensive proposal, the ‘Charter of members’ rights’, was not among them, we should state from the outset. It will apparently be put to an all-members’ vote shortly, but its origin remains somewhat mysterious. We will deal with it further below.

Labour Against the Witchhunt decided to submit a short version of its demands in the second of three ‘tracks’ of the review: ‘Membership involvement and participation’. For a week or so, the proposal had around 50 nominations, easily leading the field in that track.

Of course, LAW comrades were under no illusion that Momentum would actually put our proposals forward. After all, Momentum owner Jon Lansman has played a pretty despicable role in the anti-Semitism witch-hunt – for example, by throwing Jackie Walker to the wolves after she was suspended from the Labour Party on trumped-up charges of anti-Semitism. He arranged to have her removed as vice-chair of Momentum (just before he abolished all democratic structure in his coup of January 10 2017).

Another organisation involved in that sorry affair is, of course, the Alliance for Workers’ Liberty, whose members on the Momentum steering committee voted for comrade Walker’s removal – just before they were ‘removed’ themselves by Lansman.

Momentum-demoCottoning on to the fact that it might be politically useful to use Momentum’s “digital democracy platform”, a few days before the deadline of February 16, the AWL submitted its own proposal on the witch-hunt. This was pretty much in line with LAW’s motion – with one important omission: it does not contain any references to the anti-Semitism witch-hunt or criticism of the Labour Party’s support for the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of anti-Semitism. This IHRA definition, in its list of examples, conflates anti-Semitism with anti-Zionism and support for the rights of the Palestinian people.

The AWL, not seeing the wood for the trees, seems unable to grasp that the hundreds of suspensions on false charges of ‘anti-Semitism’ are an integral part of the witch-hunt. Thanks to the AWL’s ‘unique selling point’ of seeing anti-Semites everywhere, it is very happy to go along with that aspect of the campaign against leftwingers in the party – see ‘When chickens come home’ Weekly Worker February 15. 1)To add a small correction to that article, we would like to point out that there seems to be some difference on the issue within the AWL. Leader Sean Matgamna continues to call for Ken Livingstone to be expelled from the Labour Party (see www.workersliberty.org/ story/2017-07-26/livingstone-and-anti-zionist- left). Meanwhile, the editorial team of the AWL paper Solidarity officially says it disagrees (see www.workersliberty see org/node/31045). Despite that it happily publishes Matgamna’s articles without any ‘correctives’ and regularly denounces Livingstone as an ‘anti-Semite’ in its pages.)

In any case, the AWL mobilised heavily on and off Facebook and its Momentum proposal quickly caught up with LAW’s motion. Just before the deadline (midnight, February 16), however, some rather mysterious events unfolded.

LAW’s and the AWL’s proposals were ahead, neck and neck, until just before 11pm, when they were suddenly both overtaken by another one, that had been lingering at a distant third. It is the rather lame proposal to raise the threshold for the Labour Party’s trigger ballot for the reselection of MPs from 50% to 66%. (At present an MP needs to win a simple majority of nominations from local party branches and affiliated trade unions and socialist societies in order to become the candidate once more).

We know that this proposal has the support of Jon Lansman – not just because it won, but because he has been raising the issue in recent interviews. This system now seems to be Jeremy Corbyn’s preferred alternative to the long-standing principle of ‘mandatory reselection’ of MPs. But this system is still disproportionally in favour of the sitting MP. Rather than allowing for a full and democratic automatic selection process before every election, a sitting MP has to be challenged. This is the wrong way round. Lansman knows that, of course. He has campaigned for mandatory selection all of his adult life. Corbyn and Lansman are wrong in thinking this will placate the right in the party.

Nevertheless, within the last half an hour or so, that proposal suddenly received more than 50 nominations, so it topped the list of nominated proposals (you can read all three further below). Maybe some Lansman loyalists suddenly remembered they had not yet voted. Or maybe Lansman did a ring-round to garner last-minute support. We may never know.

To add further to the mystery, it appears that some people already knew well before the deadline which proposal would win. In the February 16 issue of The Times (written, of course, the day before) Lucy Fisher writes: “Momentum has proposed raising the threshold [for the trigger ballot] to two thirds of nominations”. Clearly, it is enough for Jon Lansman to declare his support for something to make it official Momentum policy – Lucy Fisher got that right.

All this calls into question Momentum’s so-called ‘democracy’ once again. Anybody who believes that Jon Lansman abolished all previous structures and decision-making bodies in order to make Momentum more democratic (yes, there are people who believe this) is clearly deluded or – more realistically – hoping for a career in the Labour Party.

This episode also exposes the limits of so-called online Omov (one member, one vote). It sounds democratic, but it is anything but. For a start, very few members actually participated. There were quite a few proposals – with some comrades submitting their own rather eccentric hobby horse – but the number of ‘nominations’ for each proposal rarely managed to get into double figures. The three mentioned above were way above the rest and in the end Lansman’s proposal had garnered 114 nominations, while the AWL’s received 74 and LAW’s had 70. Out of a Momentum membership of over 20,000!

Even worse: most of the people who did participate in this fake-democratic exercise did so only because they were urged to do so by their ‘faction’ – be it LAW, AWL or the Lansmanites. Which means that a fair chunk of participants will not even have read the rest of the proposals.

The ‘factionalism’ so criticised by many Omov supporters is evidently still in full swing in Momentum – it is just a lot less transparent than it would be with a proper democratic decision-making process: for example, a conference.

Momentum Charter

Interestingly, Momentum felt obliged to send Tony Greenstein (under whose name LAW’s proposal was submitted) a message on the morning of Saturday February 17. A mere 10 hours after nominations closed, the unnamed participants of a “panel” of the Momentum national coordinating committee had already decided that some points of the LAW proposal were worthy of support and, indeed, “are covered in the ‘Charter of members’ rights’, which will be put to a ‘one member, one vote’ of Momentum members shortly”. According to the email, the charter covers these LAW demands:

that “the Chakrabarti report to be fully implemented”;

that “people accused of breaches of the rules should be given evidence against them and explained the process”;

that “membership rights should not be removed until an investigation is completed (ie, suspension should only be used as a last resort)”.

We do not know who exactly has drafted the Momentum’s charter, what kind of legal standing it would have in the Labour constitution and how indeed it would be enforced. It is presented as an amendment to the ‘membership rules’ (section A, chapter 2) in the rulebook, but also states that these “rights should be protected under Labour’s constitution” (our emphasis).

In any case, the charter does indeed contain some pretty useful and overdue stipulations. No doubt these proposals are also supported by Jeremy Corbyn, on whose behalf Jon Lansman is, of course, running Momentum.

In the point, ‘Transparency’, the charter contains, for example, the “right” of party members to “inspect the financial records of the party” and the need to give members “access to all key documents governing national and local-level party activity, including rules, standing orders, guidance notes, appendices, codes of conducts and procedures, which should be collated and made available on membersnet in clear and accessible language”.

Labour Party Rule Book - Labour-Party-2018-Rule-BookAny Labour Party member who has ever tried to get hold of the full standing orders of their Constituency Labour Party or local campaign forum will know that they are often treated as a closely guarded secret by people in control of the levers of power.

Other useful points in the charter include ‘Capacity building and skills development’, which again sound like a lot of obvious waffle – unless you try first-hand to organise a training session or education event in your CLP.

Most important is, however, the section on ‘Disciplinary justice’, which is subdivided into 12 points and forms the longest part of the document. It contains many recommendations from the Chakrabarti report and its aim is to “ensure that disciplinary matters are dealt with fairly”. It is designed to put a (middle-sized) spanner into the works of the rightwing party bureaucracy, which has suspended thousands of pro-Corbyn members on the most absurd charges. In many cases, members are not actually told what they have been suspended for. Suspensions are upheld for many months, often years, without any effort on the bureaucracy’s side to resolve them.

This section contains useful proposals on how to make the disciplinary process more open and clearly understandable, with decisions and complaints being given in writing and the need to give those complained about “a length of time the process is likely to take” (though they fail to take up LAW’s proposal to set the limit at three months). The proposals would also end the practice of some automatic and instant expulsions, which carry an automatic ban of five years, without the right to appeal (though this would probably have to be deleted from the rule book in another amendment). The proposals include:

  • “Alleged breaches of party rules shall only be investigated if the breach complained of took place within 12 months prior to the complaint” (except when it is a case of “alleged criminal conduct”).
  • There should be an “equitable time lapse, specified in the rules, for the readmission of expelled members proportionate to the gravity of their offence” (to replace the automatic five-year ban).
  • Where the NEC considers “auto-exclusion”, “the member shall be informed of the allegation in advance of the decision and have the right to make representations within a specified time scale before the decision is made, and there shall be a right of appeal”.
  • “Suspensions shall be a last resort” and should only be used “where the NEC decides that there is a prima facie case of a serious breach of party rules”; normally where the NEC is considering suspension, “the party member shall be informed of the allegation in advance of the decision and have the right to make representations within a specified timescale”.
  • “… all complainants (if any) and the person complained about shall receive a written decision on the outcome of the complaint, giving reasons”.

And then the bad

More interestingly, as always, are the points in LAW’s proposal that Jon Lansman will not support. It is highly interesting to see them spelt out in the email to Tony. The email states that the “NCC panel” (Lansman and Corbyn?) disagrees with:

The call for the replacement of the staff team charged with enforcing compliance in the Labour Party with elected representatives, on the basis that disciplinary justice does require having independent and professional people in charge of implementing disciplinary affairs. In addition, key decisions over disciplinary affairs are already taken by elected representatives: namely those on the NEC disputes committee.

They also disagree with the proposal to delete the first part of rule 2.1.4.B, as this could benefit groups which are opposed to the party.

Finally, they believe that is outside of Momentum’s remit to take a position on precise definitions of anti-Semitism.

The last of the three points is the least surprising, in that Jon Lansman and Jeremy Corbyn have made it clear that they will continue to go along with the absurd claim that the Labour Party has a huge problem with anti-Semitism. They will stick with the IHRA definition and, crucially, its widely derided list of “examples”, which conflate anti-Semitism with anti-Zionism.

Worryingly, they also want to keep rule 2.1.4.B in place, according to which “a member of the party who joins and/or supports a political organisation other than an official Labour group or unit of the party … shall automatically be ineligible to be or remain a party member”. We wonder if they think that the punishment of auto-exclusion for that particular crime, with an automatic ban from membership of five years, should remain in place?

This rule has been applied in an entirely one-sided way against leftwingers only – among them supporters of Socialist Appeal, the Alliance for Workers’ Liberty and Labour Party Marxists. Groups such as Progress and Labour First (also not affiliated to the party) remain untouched and can continue to operate freely and in a highly organised fashion. And what about supporters of the Stop the War Coalition or Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament? Aren’t they also examples of a “political organisation”? This rule clearly should go. The Labour Party would be positively transformed by allowing members of left groups – who are often the most educated and most dedicated in the party, doing most of the grunt work on the ground – to operate freely in the party.

Most worryingly though, Lansman and Corbyn want to keep the compliance unit in place. True, the NEC disputes committee looks over all cases. But the investigations, suspensions and expulsions are all instigated and driven by the unelected compliance unit, which is firmly in the hands of general secretary and anti-Corbyn witch-hunter general Iain McNicol.

Even if there is a plan to replace the man with a leftwinger at some point in the future, it would still mean that this important body remains in the murky shadows and can continue to operate without any accountability. It is not democratic if the members cannot replace it.


LAW logo high resLAW proposal

The witch-hunt and disciplinary procedures – Chakrabarti
Submitted by Tony Greenstein

The automatic and instant expulsions and suspensions – especially those based on alleged anti-Semitism and those based on members’ alleged “support for other organisations” using rule 2.1.4.B – have brought the party into disrepute: they have prevented and discouraged new members from getting involved in party life, while valuable resources have been wasted in persecuting some of the most energetic and effective campaigners for social change.

We believe that the party should end these practices, and that:

  • the recommendations of the Chakrabarti report should be implemented immediately;
  • all those summarily expelled or suspended without due process should be immediately reinstated;
  • an accused member should be given all the evidence submitted against them and be regarded as innocent until proven guilty;
  • membership rights should not be removed until disciplinary procedures have been completed;
  • disciplinary procedures should include consultation with the member’s CLP and branch;
  • disciplinary procedures should be time-limited. Charges not resolved within three months should be automatically dropped;
  • the first part of rule 2.1.4.B (‘Exclusions’) should be deleted: it currently bars from Labour Party membership anybody who “joins and/or supports a political organisation other than an official Labour group or other unit of the party”;
  • the party should reject the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of anti-Semitism which, in its list of examples, conflates anti-Semitism with anti-Zionism and support for the rights of the Palestinian people;
  • the party should immediately abolish the ‘compliance/disputes unit’. Disciplinary decisions should be taken by elected bodies, not paid officials.

AWL proposal

Reverse and prevent unjust expulsions and suspensions – for a transparent, accountable disciplinary system and a pluralist political culture
Submitted by Ed Whitby

The vast majority of the many expulsions and suspensions since 2015 have been politically unjustified/unjust and violated natural justice. They have prevented and discouraged new members with valuable skills and talents from getting involved, created a culture of intimidation in parts of the party, and wasted valuable resources on such persecution – all weakening our ability to take on the Tories and campaign to change society.

Therefore we propose:

  • The Chakrabarti report’s recommendations should be implemented.
  • The first part of rule 2.1.4.B – auto-exclusion for any member who “joins and/or supports a political organisation other than an official Labour group or other unit of the party” – should be scrapped, as per the rule change already going to conference this year (https://stopthelabourpurge.wordpress.com/2017/06/19/urgent). All Labour supporters should be welcome in Labour: membership of particular Labour-supporting organisations or previous leftwing activity should be irrelevant.
  • The practice of auto-exclusion should be abolished. Everyone should be regarded as innocent until proven guilty and get a proper procedure, including advance notice of charges, the right to evidence submitted against them and the identity of the accuser/s, consultation with their CLP and branch, a full hearing, and the right to an appeal. Membership rights should not be removed until procedures are completed. This should apply retroactively to those denied these rights.
  • Responsibility for these issues should be transferred from the ‘governance and legal unit’ (previously compliance unit) to elected bodies and officials

Jon Lansman proposal

A democratic selection process for the 21st century
Submitted by Dan Iley Williamson

At present, the Labour Party does not have a democratic selection procedure for selecting its parliamentary candidates. The current ‘trigger ballot’ system allows for the possibility of sitting MPs to be automatically reselected, even when they lack the support of the majority of their local members; and, if members do want an input into candidate selections, it forces them to organise on a solely negative basis. I propose replacing the ‘trigger ballot’ system with the following democratic procedure:

  • If a sitting MP has indicated that they wish to stand for re-election, the NEC shall agree a timetable for a selection process for that constituency, candidates shall be invited to express interest in the selection and a shortlisting committee shall be appointed in line with procedural guidance to be issued by the NEC.
  • Party units and affiliates may each make a single nomination of a candidate.
  • If the sitting MP receives both (i) nominations from party branches with a combined membership of more than two-thirds of the CLP membership, and (ii) nominations submitted by more than two-thirds of the affiliates and party units other than branches submitting nominations, then the sitting MP shall be automatically reselected.
  • Where the sitting MP is not automatically reselected, the shortlisting committee shall present a shortlist of nominated candidates to all members of the CLP entitled to vote. That shortlist must reflect the requirements of the NEC to ensure that candidates are representative of our society, it must include the sitting MP and it must be subject to the requirement that any candidate who has received nominations either from party branches with a combined membership of more than one half of the CLP membership or from more than half of the affiliates and party units other than branches making nominations shall be included, subject to meeting eligibility criteria.

This democratic selection procedure ensures that to be reselected MPs must have the support of their local members. By ensuring a nominations process, this rule change allows both sitting MPs and potential candidates to seek out nominations from local units and affiliates, thereby increasing the accountability between members and MPs. The process allows MPs to get automatically reselected if they have the clear support of members and trade union affiliates, whilst at the same time offering other candidates a fair chance of getting a guaranteed place on the shortlist.

References

1 To add a small correction to that article, we would like to point out that there seems to be some difference on the issue within the AWL. Leader Sean Matgamna continues to call for Ken Livingstone to be expelled from the Labour Party (see www.workersliberty.org/ story/2017-07-26/livingstone-and-anti-zionist- left). Meanwhile, the editorial team of the AWL paper Solidarity officially says it disagrees (see www.workersliberty see org/node/31045). Despite that it happily publishes Matgamna’s articles without any ‘correctives’ and regularly denounces Livingstone as an ‘anti-Semite’ in its pages.

Momentum’s proposed ‘Charter of Members’ Rights’

Click here to read the PDF version of Momentum’s Charter of Members’ Rights, which “which will be put to a One Member One Vote of Momentum members shortly” and is no doubt supported by Jeremy Corbyn.


The Labour Party Rule Book 2017. Section A. Chapter 2 Membership Rules. Amendment

Insert into a new Clause IV under Chapter 2 of the Rule Book, after the new Code of Ethics

2.1.3. There shall be a Charter of Members’ Rights to guarantee the rights of Labour Party members.

Introduction

As a democratic socialist party, the Labour Party’s ability to deliver on its core values and objectives depends fundamentally on its ability to fully harness the talent, ideas, and commitment of its membership base. This depends on guaranteeing those members rights to transparency, accountability, participation, training, and disciplinary justice. All party members and staff should be made aware of the rights of members, which are established in this Charter. These rights shall be established along with a set of responsibilities, which shall be covered in a Code of Ethics, which covers all actors in the Labour Party. Both the Charter of Members’ Right and Code of Ethics shall be supervised by the Labour Party Ombudsperson, to whom a complaint may be made by a Labour Party member, employee, contractor, officer, or representative alleging a breach of the Code.

 

Transparency

Party members should have rights to a minimum level of transparency from the party, including the following:

a) To inspect the financial records of the Party, on giving reasonable notice;

b) To be provided with full information about the Party’s finances on an annual basis;

c) Access to all key documents governing national and local-level party activity, including rules, standing orders, guidance notes, appendices, codes of conducts and procedures, which should be collated and made available on membersnet in clear and accessible language;

d) Right to know who their elected representatives are at all levels of the party, as well as the elected representatives of all affiliated organisations participating in any vote.

 

Accountability

As a democratic socialist party, the Labour Party shall guarantee meaningful mechanisms of accountability between its members, elected representatives, and paid staff. On that basis, members shall have rights to the following:

Elected Representatives

a)   Meaningful democratic mechanisms that ensure accountability between party members and elected representatives. These mechanisms should ensure that members are as fully involved as possible in the selections of all Parliamentary candidates, and candidates for other elections;

b) Elected representatives should report in writing to respective branches or CLPs;

c) Elected representatives should be accountable to their CLPs or branches in that CLP policy or branch policy should be taken into account when elected representatives cast a vote, or express a policy position, and if the elected representative does not adhere to branch or CLP policy, s/he should report that position to the branch/CLP and take into account the branch/CLP comments;

d) Elected representatives who are paid a full-time wage for their positions should not take on other employment.

Party staff

e) Party staff actions and behaviour should always be in accordance with the democratic socialist orientation of the party, promoting and cultivating a culture of public service, inclusiveness, and innovation, with the aim of building a participatory, transformative, members-led party, this culture should be maintained by meaningful line management and performance monitoring, with senior managers reporting directly to the NEC;

f) All internal elections, disciplinary matters and other internal issues of Party management should be conducted in a manner that is fully impartial, independent and (so far as compatible with personal confidentiality), transparency;

g) Managers to report regularly to the NEC, Regional Boards or other Party structure on the work of the staff;

h) Transparency in the Labour Party staffing structure, so that members are informed of the specific rights, remits, and responsibilities of staff members, as well as of relevant lines of accountability;

 

Participation

Labour is at its best when its members are fully engaged, and their talents, ideas and commitment can be fully harnessed. On that basis, members shall have the following rights:

a) To participate in local Party governance, and not to be excluded from it except in accordance with the rules of the Party;

b) To actively contribute to the development of Party policy, under the sovereign authority of Conference, and not to be excluded from it except in accordance with the rules of the Party;

c) To contribute meaningfully to the selection of candidates to represent the Party in elections to public office on an equal opportunities basis;

d) To be considered for nomination as a Party candidate for election to public office, on satisfying prescribed qualifying conditions;

e) To participate in the election of the Leader and Deputy Leader of the Party;

f) Where they are so excluded, to appeal to a separate decision-making panel;

g) To be treated with respect;

h) To have their diverse qualities, conditions, skills and talents respected and valued;

i) All meetings, and other activities, to be organised so that the widest numbers of members can participate, including ensuring that venues used are physically and culturally accessible, and that information is communicated in a variety of languages (if requested) and is visually accessible.

 

Capacity Building and Skills Development

In order to fully harness their abilities, Labour Party members should have opportunities to improve on their skills and talents to increase the contribution they make to the party. This will not only increase the overall contributions made by members to the party, but will also seek to minimise gaps in experience or skills created by an unequal society. They shall therefore have the following rights:

a) Capacity building for incoming officers on branch and CLP Executives, particularly for Secretaries, Chairs, and Treasurers;

b) Training in persuasive conversations, community organising, and workplace organising;

c) Access to broad-based political education opportunities and resources, covering key areas of thinking underpinning different ideologies and strands of thinking represented by the Labour Party;

d) Where requested by members, training in identifying and combating racism, sexism, Islamophobia, antisemitism, homophobia, transphobia and other forms of discrimination, greater awareness of disability rights, in order to be able to identify prejudice and discrimination as and when they occur and challenge it;

e) Opportunities to apply for candidate training as councillors, MPs or other elected office on an equal opportunities basis as well as to gain skills-based training that is relevant for people interested in public office;

 

Disciplinary Justice

Running the Labour Party in line with its principles, and in order to achieve its objectives, will only be possible through the creation of a culture of trust and understanding shared by all across the party. This can only be achieved through ensuring that disciplinary matters are dealt with fairly. Members shall therefore be guaranteed the following rights:

a) To access a clear complaints procedure explaining clearly how and to whom complaints are to be made, and the information to be set out in a complaint. The procedure should also include the processes which may be triggered including processes for exploring an informal resolution of the complaint where appropriate as well as the length of time that each stage of the process is likely to take. This process could be operated by a Labour Party Ombudsperson.

b) For that process to be clearly explained to any complainants, and to the person being complained about;

c) For the complainant to be able to request anonymity and to have his or her request determined urgently by the investigating officer, and if anonymity is refused, the reasons for the refusal shall be put in writing and the complainant given the opportunity to withdraw the complaint before it has been communicated to the person complained about;

d) That alleged breaches of party rules shall only be investigated if the breach complained of took place within 12 months prior to the complaint, save that this limitation period will not apply to complaints alleging criminal conduct;

e) To freedom of expression, consistent with the requirements of the Labour Party Constitution, and not extending to the use of racist epithets, abusive references to any particular person or group based on actual or perceived physical characteristics, sexism, homophobia, anti-Semitism, transphobia, Islamophobia, prejudiced remarks on the basis of disability or age;

f) An equitable time lapse, specified in the Rules, for the readmission of expelled members proportionate to the gravity of their offence;

g) For any potential political motivations of allegations to be considered in any disciplinary processes.

h) Where the complaint is of potential breach of the Party rules, so as to require investigation by the National Constitution Committee, the provisions of the NCC’s procedural rules shall apply;

i) Where the complaint is such that the NEC would consider “auto exclusion” i.e. removing a Party member of his or her membership because it has concluded that the member is ineligible to be a member, the member shall be informed of the allegation in advance of the decision and have the right to make representations within a specified timescale before the decision is made, and there shall be a right of appeal;

j) Suspension shall be a last resort. The NEC shall only suspend a Party member accused of potential breach of the Party rules in cases where the NEC decides that there is a prima facie case of a serious breach of Party rules; normally where the NEC is considering suspension, the Party member shall be informed of the allegation and possible suspension (pending disciplinary action) and have the right to make representations within a specified timescale;

k) That all complainants (if any) and the person complained about shall receive a written decision on the outcome of the complaint, giving reasons;

l) For the NEC to appoint an ombudsperson tasked with safeguarding the rights of members, such Ombudsperson to report to the NEC on his or her work, the pattern and outcomes of complaints received by him or her and to make recommendations as to potential management changes or rule changes. The NEC shall have no authority to review the Ombudsperson’s decisions on individual complaints.

 

Supporting Argument

A Charter of Members’ Rights is necessary to remake the Labour Party so that it is structurally and culturally coherent with democratic socialist principles. Given the massive potential of the incredible expansion of the party membership in recent years, it is necessary to ensure that the talent, creativity, and commitment of the members is fully harnessed. This Charter outlines key members’ rights which should be protected under Labour’s Constitution.