CLP Supporting Motion for Rule Change

If you have a CLP meeting coming up, please consider using this model motion.

Suggested Model Motion of Support for CLPs

This branch/CLP believes:

  • that being a Labour MP should not be a job for life;
  • that candidates should be selected openly without restrictions before each general election;
  • that all individual and affiliate members should be able to participate in the selection of candidates;
  • that the existing system of trigger ballots prevents this from happening and creates unnecessary antagonisms, turning what should be a normal open process into an implied vote of no confidence in a sitting Labour MP;
  • that a fully democratised Labour Party based on the principle of One Member One Vote is the best way to ensure the election of a Labour government with the strength and resolve to create a fair and just society for the many, not the few.


Therefore this branch/CLP:

  • resolves to support the Labour Open Selection Campaign, calling for Open Selection of MPs;
  • agrees to make a donation of xxx to Labour International CLP's campaign fund;
  • calls upon the NEC to endorse and support the LI Rule Change motion from 2018 and to reintroduce at as an NEC rule change at the next Labour Conference;

Showing 6 reactions

Please check your e-mail for a link to activate your account.
  • Tanbir Siddique
    commented 2019-05-04 15:12:06 +0100
    Rule change to reform the three year rule which would ensure that popular rule changes are able to secure a waiver from the three year rule:

    Conference delegates are often discouraged from debating key proposals on the basis that if they lose the vote they will be off the agenda for a number of years, which forces them to act primarily on the basis of political calculation rather than open debate and discussion. This rule change will mean that popular, important debates on party reforms desired by the members or trade union affiliates are no longer prevented.
  • @Open_Selection tweeted this page. 2019-02-16 15:26:03 +0000
  • Nigel Rushby
    commented 2018-09-10 21:52:59 +0100
    Hi John, can you share with us what CLP you represent. Can I just say that OMOV caused a big problem back in the day in my CLP of Slough because we had a couple of people signing up Members at minimal cost and then using their votes en masse to take control of the Party. Also the trigger vote is an issue because my understanding is that it is not based on Members but wards, if half of the Wards vote to keep an MP then the minority can rule over the majority so mass-registration of new Members in ‘smaller’ wards distorts the democratic process, but I have no doubt you take these points into account when coming to the decision not to have an open selection process for future parliamentary candidates.
  • Fran Hanlon
    commented 2018-08-08 15:23:33 +0100
    I will be taking this to my clp…

    O the irony of those calling for people’s vote ….yet dismissing this.

  • John Malone
    commented 2018-07-18 17:29:56 +0100
    We discussed this at our CLP meeting last Thursday and rejected the motion.
    Members agreed that more transparency was needed and that OMOV was an absolute necessity, but the removal of the trigger vote was seen as a step too far.
  • Jacqueline Cairns
    commented 2018-07-11 13:47:52 +0100
    Sounds good and fair to me.

NEC Reps