How to make your vote count – getting socialists on the NEC

The elections for nine CLP seats on Labour’s National Executive Committee will open soon.

Conducted under a new electoral system it is important that we act in a coherent and unified way to maximise our chances of full representation on the NEC.

Jewish Voice for Labour is part of the Centre Left Grassroots Alliance and we urge you all to support the six CLGA candidates first – before giving your seventh and subsequent preferences to other candidates who also support a radical policy agenda and democracy in the party.

And because the STV system is complicated, the order in which you vote for the six CLGA candidates also matters. Please take the time to read and follow the advice below.

Voting for nine CLP seats on Labour’s NEC gets under way on October 19, using Single Transferable Voting for the first time. In the past we could cast nine votes of equal value. In this election we have to rank candidates by preference using numbers.

JVL is part of the  Centre Left Grassroots Alliance (CLGA), backing the Grassroots Voice Six (#GV6) – Gemma Bolton, Yasmine Dar, Ann Henderson, Nadia Jama, Laura Pidcock and Mish Rahman – who support a progressive policy agenda for Labour and are committed to  defending party democracy. See their manifesto here.

CLGA has produced six sequenced lists to guide members in casting their preference votes, depending on the geographical areas where they live.

CLICK HERE to enter your postcode and find the voting preferences for your region that will give #GV6 the best chance of success.

See all the regional lists here.

By voting for the #GV6 candidates in positions 1 through 6, in a particular order depending on your region, you will help minimise the danger of any of the six being unnecessarily knocked out of the election early during the count. For information on how STV vote counting works, see this video.

After giving #GV6 your first six preferences, please give your seventh and subsequent preferences to other candidates who also support a radical policy agenda and democracy in the party.

It’s not only the CLP places that will be up for grabs. There are socialists standing in other categories of NEC membership who deserve support.

Local Government

Many members were disappointed that Jo Bird was not included on the CLP slate of six. However, we are delighted that she is standing alongside fellow councillor Matt White for the two Local Government seats.

We are also recommending support for the following:

Youth representative

Lara McNeill  

Endorsed by Fire Brigades’ Union and Bakers, Food and Allied Workers’ Union.

Current NEC Youth Rep, standing on her record of fighting for a democratic party and an unashamedly socialist platform, and delivering a youth manifesto for the 2019 election.

Disability representative

Ellen Morrison  

Endorsed by Disabled People Against Cuts (DPAC), Disability Labour, UNITE, Fire Brigades’ Union and Bakers, Food and Allied Workers’ Union.

Disability Officer in Lewisham East CLP; organised campaigns, events, protests and conferences with DPAC; Active in the campaign to #StopAndScrapUniversalCredit.

Welsh representative

Mick Antoniw

Endorsed by ASLEF, TSSA, Bakers Food & Allied Workers’ Union, NUM (South Wales), UNISON Cymru/ Wales, Socialist Education Association, Socialist Health Association, Wales Council of the Co-operative Party

Welsh NEC rep since January 2019, founding member of the Welsh anti-apartheid movement and a trade-union lawyer who represented Orgreave miners; committed to a truly membership-led party.

Treasurer

Esther Giles

Has 35 years experience as public finance accountant; committed to promoting governance underpinned by the Nolan principles of public life; for clear and accessible communication regarding all financial and NEC matters. Has written to the General Secretary challenging the decision to use party funds to settle libel action by former party staffers.

 

 

Comments (11)

  • Stephen Latham says:

    A technical question here.

    Would placing the Left Alliance 6 directly above the Grassroots Voice 6, be likely to affect the number of successful candidates from these 2 slates combined? i.e. In the unlikely event of a Left Alliance candidate being successful, wouldn’t they only end up replacing one of the Grassroots Voice, rather than risking more of the less favourable candidates from other slates in?

    I ask this question because it seems the Left Alliance have had the guts to say they will fight for many of the policies and principles often promoted by JVL which would be particularly attractive to many on the left. These issues are conspicuously absent from the Grassroots voice candidates, although I generally agree with what both slates say!

  • Pete Rossetti says:

    Well in my view the LLA and their antics are likely to prevent the possibility of the full slate being elected.

  • RC says:

    SL is correct. LLA provides for everything desirable proposed by GV, and adds policies particularly needed by JVL. STV is designed to ensure that as few votes as possible are wasted: consistently putting 6 LLA candidates 1-6 and then GV candidates does not damage GV policy at all. (I understand that LLA offered several times to negotiate a joint slate with GV, but was not answered ).
    It is surely very important to oppose explicitly those candidates whio are explicitly antisemitic by privileging ‘JLM’ (neither necessarily Jewish nor Labour) over JVL and nonaffiliated Jews. One example of this is Jermaine Jackman – of Open (sic) Labour, which discriminates in the fashion just described. For them, we are all ‘the wrong sort of Jew’. his includes well-known Ann Black.
    I understand explicit opposition can be done by putting the truly pro-capitalist and otherwise undesirable candidates eg the LtW Blairite slate in positions 37-42, with Akehurst bottom of the pile – unless there is some miscellaneous character who is even more committed to IDF mass murder etc. Please correct my understanding of the ballot procedure if I have got the technicalities wrong. This does require a good deal of homework on all 42 statements. (though non-slate candidates are likely but not certain to fall at the earliest counts); for my money that reduces the ‘homework candidates’ to say 15+ ‘.
    I have no idea what ‘antics’ Pete Rossetti is referring to or what his reasons are. I suspect he is undergoing an emotional spasm…

  • Kathleen Bellucci says:

    Thank you so much for this information, it is very useful for me to know the voting system, must have been quite hard compiling this so once again many thanks.

  • Stephen Latham says:

    RC just leave Akehurst out. It has the same effect without risking that it might help him beat an outsider we haven’t chosen!

    So my order at the moment is

    1) 6 Left Wing Alliance candidates at the top, followed by
    2) 6 Grassroots Voice candidates in the order advised by your postcode, as detailed elsewhere
    3) any Independents you like (Fiona Dent is on the Left)
    4) any OK Independents with high nominations (Flintoff)
    5) Tribune (the ex Labour PLPs)
    6) the 3 Open Labour candidates
    7) 5 Labour2win candidates MISSING OUT Akehurst

    I think it’s even more important to contact as many LW members as possible to make sure they vote. Some have left. I think only a third of members usually vote at NEC elections, and you can be sure the right wingers will be.

    PS I’m willing to be convinced of a different order if someone can provide hard evidence it will help LW candidates significantly, but not on the basis of what I’ve seen so far.

  • Teresa Cairns says:

    Just to highlight that you don’t have X number of votes but you have a Single Transferable Vote that gets transferred to you next candidate if & when your 1st choice reaches the quota needed to be elected

  • Teresa Cairns says:

    You DO NOT need to vote for every single candidate! You vote for the candidates you support – if you rank those you disagree with, you effectively gift them your vote in the event your other choices don’t make it through. SIMPLE SOLUTION:only vote for those you politically support!

  • rc says:

    Teresa leaves out the possibility that while some candidates may be unacceptable, others may be positively loathsome. I do not see how one can vote ‘against’ the latter without putting a (very low) preference for the former. This deals with the arithmetic of SL’s point, though not with the possibility that mentioning X at the bottom of one’s list may provoke dubious elements to vote for him (or her!). But by that time it would be too late.

  • Jonathan Rosenhead says:

    RC says that LLA offers everything that Grassroots Voice does and more. I’m not so sure about that: the LLA campaign’s focus on the witchhunt has left other important issues neglected. But the crucial reason why they don’t ‘offer more’ is because they don’t offer a realistic possibility of gaining seats for the Left. (That’s an amorphous concept I know, but we tend to recognise it when we see it – and certainly we can distinguish it from Labour to Win).
    Many, perhaps all, of the individual LLA candidates are admirable comrades. (I don’t know most of them personally.) And there can be very good reasons – educational ones – for promoting policies that are not currently attainable. But at election time the issue is winning. Putting any of them ahead of the GV6, especially if done in numbers, runs the risk of losing a seat the left could have won.
    JVL has taken the position that right now the solidarity of the great majority of principled left Labour organisations is the priority. CLGA represents 13 of these. Within CLGA we argued for particular candidates and particular points on the slate manifesto, and sadly didn’t win all our points. But (referring to his original comment about the witch hunt) the agreed position of the GV6, as you will see here, does include to “press for a fair, robust and transparent internal disciplinary process, with natural justice at the core”.
    On the working of STV I fear that RC is misleading. There is absolutely no advantage in wrestling with your conscience about which of two middling right candidates to put at preference 31 rather than 32. Voting for any of them at all cannot advantage any left candidate, and just might by some fluke enable one of them to beat a proper leftist. Only vote left, and leave the rest blank.

  • Stephen Latham says:

    There are a few misunderstandings about STV, although its probably too late to do anything about it

    Expressing a preference for candidates from the same party IN ORDER minimizes the impact of votes being spread too thinly and potential winners with broad second-preference appeal being eliminated.

    Ranking too few candidates can lead to your vote becoming “exhausted” so it can no longer be transferred, thereby losing the opportunity to influence the result.

    STV doesn’t only allow you to prioritise your positive choices, but influence who doesn’t get elected. This has to be done carefully, so everyone with a chance of getting elected is listed in order of least worst, with the very worst individual at the bottom, or left out.

    If you have only ranked 6 or 9 candidates (say from GV and LLA for example) your vote will not be able to influence WHICH of the Labour2win candidates gets a place. It’s estimated between 2 and 4 will.

    Remember entering candidates in the lower rankings can’t damage anyone you rank above them, only the unfavourable ones you rank below.

Comments are now closed.