NEC Proposal: NEC Right of Veto on Policy Decisions

Anthony Butcher · 21-05-2006, 08:30 PM

NEC Proposal submitted 12th March by Anthony Butcher

PROBLEM
The new constitution places full policy control within the hands of the Leader, but provides no checks and balances to ensure that the Leader is acting in accordance with the wishes of the party membership. Given that the Leader only faces re-election every four years, the party may be left in the situation of having a Leader promoting a series of policies completely at odds with the majority views in the party.

Furthermore, since policy directly impacts on recruitment, finances and morale, all of which fully remain under NEC jurisdiction, there is a clear potential problem of the NEC being unable to correct problems that it would otherwise be responsible for.

PROPOSAL
The NEC should have a right of veto over policy decisions, if passed by a majority vote.

ISSUES
This balances the power of policy creation. It leaves the Leader in charge of policy research and direction, but also provides the membership with a mechanism for preventing damaging (as deemed by the NEC) or unwanted policies from being issued.

There is a potential danger of an NEC over using the power to dictate policy by refusing to accept any policies that the NEC does not propose. Such action would be contrary to the spirit of the new constitution.

Colin McNamee · 30-05-2006, 01:30 PM

I agree that there needs to be a check and balance. the potential problem as mentioned

Quote:

there is a clear potential problem of the NEC being unable to correct problems that it would otherwise be responsible for.

It remains unfortunate that in submitting the proposed new party Constitutuion that it was not possible to at least highlight some if not all of the critical changes to enable members to make a more informed decision.

harryaldridge · 30-05-2006, 01:49 PM

Good idea Anthony. The NEC does need more power to act in the interests of the party members.

A problem you may face is that if you increase the power of the NEC, the NEC needs to be more accountable. i.e. people serving 3 years terms makes them fairly unaccountable to the members on decisions being taken.

Perhaps more regular NEC elections (anually?) would help. Or give the NEC the power to block, and any unresolvable dispute goes to a members ballot (maybe set a blocking time limit of 8 weeks after which time it goes ot members). Or list the NEC members voting record in each issue of 'Indpendence', allowing the members to see clearly how the NEC members are voting.

As i say, my only concern is increasing the power of the NEC without increasing accountability. I know 3 year terms is more accountable that the government with 5 year terms, but UKIP should be an example!!

John Page · 30-05-2006, 02:13 PM

I'm not against checks nd balances in principle but -

1. Could the NEC deal with new policy proposals promptly? - assuming it ever got any.

2. Wouldn't the NEC be tempted to crawl over proposals that had already been through the policymaking process?

3. Is it appropriate to revisit this so soon after the new constitution was passed?

21-05-2006, 08:30 PM	#1 (permalink)
Anthony Butcher Administrator Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Long Ashton, Bristol Posts: 10,208 Party: None	NEC Proposal: NEC Right of Veto on Policy Decisions NEC Proposal submitted 12th March by Anthony Butcher PROBLEM The new constitution places full policy control within the hands of the Leader, but provides no checks and balances to ensure that the Leader is acting in accordance with the wishes of the party membership. Given that the Leader only faces re-election every four years, the party may be left in the situation of having a Leader promoting a series of policies completely at odds with the majority views in the party. Furthermore, since policy directly impacts on recruitment, finances and morale, all of which fully remain under NEC jurisdiction, there is a clear potential problem of the NEC being unable to correct problems that it would otherwise be responsible for. PROPOSAL The NEC should have a right of veto over policy decisions, if passed by a majority vote. ISSUES This balances the power of policy creation. It leaves the Leader in charge of policy research and direction, but also provides the membership with a mechanism for preventing damaging (as deemed by the NEC) or unwanted policies from being issued. There is a potential danger of an NEC over using the power to dictate policy by refusing to accept any policies that the NEC does not propose. Such action would be contrary to the spirit of the new constitution.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

30-05-2006, 01:49 PM	#3 (permalink)
harryaldridge Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: West Sussex Posts: 1,912	Good idea Anthony. The NEC does need more power to act in the interests of the party members. A problem you may face is that if you increase the power of the NEC, the NEC needs to be more accountable. i.e. people serving 3 years terms makes them fairly unaccountable to the members on decisions being taken. Perhaps more regular NEC elections (anually?) would help. Or give the NEC the power to block, and any unresolvable dispute goes to a members ballot (maybe set a blocking time limit of 8 weeks after which time it goes ot members). Or list the NEC members voting record in each issue of 'Indpendence', allowing the members to see clearly how the NEC members are voting. As i say, my only concern is increasing the power of the NEC without increasing accountability. I know 3 year terms is more accountable that the government with 5 year terms, but UKIP should be an example!!

30-05-2006, 02:13 PM	#4 (permalink)
John Page Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Welwyn Hatfield (Herts.) Posts: 1,878	I'm not against checks nd balances in principle but - 1. Could the NEC deal with new policy proposals promptly? - assuming it ever got any. 2. Wouldn't the NEC be tempted to crawl over proposals that had already been through the policymaking process? 3. Is it appropriate to revisit this so soon after the new constitution was passed?