Is “Two-leader” formula a better alternative to Labour’s future?
Before proceeding, I want to mention that:
- Per me, the best possible resolution for current dilemma is: Eagle to step back and let Corbyn – who was democratically elected by more than 60% of the membership – to continue leading the party
- I no way claim I know the intricacies of party policies, rule-books and inner-party activities. Instead, this is a novice attempt of a Labour supporter, who just want the party to come out of current deep divisions and focus more on what the grass-roots want and aspire for.
- In this post, I am just thinking aloud and playing around with the possibilities
- By no means has this “Two-Leader” formula perfectly answered all open issues.
- It needs to be ironed-out on how to approach government discussions / decisions on sensitive / security / foreign affairs
With those caveats in place, let me try to explain further!
By Two leaders, I mean
- Leader of the Labour Party, who is
- Democratically elected by Labour members
- Leads NEC
- Governs day-to-day Labour Party activities
- Leader of the PLP, who is
- Elected by the PLP members
- Should be member of the NEC
- Governs day-to-day PLP activities, but limited to PLP.
Some key points that support above formula are:
- NEC is the ultimate authority within the party.
- PLP is a subset of party, not over the party. Think of PLP as an “elite branch” working within Westminster.
- PLP leader is free from day-to-day party activities, though PLP decisions (with possible exclusions of sensitive items, I mean military, security etc.) are discussed / endorsed with NEC
- Party Leader is free from day-to-day government activities, though PLP decisions are still discussed within NEC.
Will try to extend this further, but what is your opinion on it, in its current form?
Let me know your thoughts!