[WharfedaleTiger]

(Original post by chrisawhitmore)
Yes, but some of the socialist societies are exclusive and mean only certain groups are represented.

By race: All white British are excluded, the Irish community vote is given equal standing with all other minorities put together, despite being smaller than either the Pakistani or Indian communities.

By Religion: Only Christians and Jews represented. By census data these are the 1st and 6th (7th if you count Jedi) biggest groups.

By Job: Lawyers get their own society, as do scientists.

By income: groups likethe Fabian society charge a hefty £18-£30 per month subscription. This means that those with higher disposable income get more votes. Hardly a good socialist idea from the 'left wing' think tank.

The parties electoral college represents the way it was founded rather than its view of democracy. The Labour party has always been a coalition of various groups-it was founded by the Unions, supported by socalist societies and only established a membership in 1928-before then you had to be a member of an affiliated society to join. Its constitution represents this, nothing more.

[chrisawhitmore]

(Original post by WharfedaleTiger)
The parties electoral college represents the way it was founded rather than its view of democracy. The Labour party has always been a coalition of various groups-it was founded by the Unions, supported by socalist societies and only established a membership in 1928-before then you had to be a member of an affiliated society to join. Its constitution represents this, nothing more.

Well, perhaps a little in-house electoral reform might put the party in a more morally authoritative position when it comes to matters of state. The suggestion that tradition trumps democracy does not really hold with the ideas they claim to represent.

[TopHat]

(Original post by chrisawhitmore)
Well, perhaps a little in-house electoral reform might put the party in a more morally authoritative position when it comes to matters of state. The suggestion that tradition trumps democracy does not really hold with the ideas they claim to represent.

I think there are people in the party who'd genuinely like to. I'd love to see Labour be able to remove that particular section of the electoral college. The trouble is funding. The affiliated societies contribute a large amount to Labour. If they were to be cut from the constitution, that'd damage Labour's funding a fair amount, and make much more difficult for Labour to contest elections. Labour is already at a huge financial disadvantage when compared to the Conservatives, so further hits are genuinely not appreciated.

If there was some way of taking funding out of the hands of both big business and big unions, and placing it at a much more local level, while retaining the amounts needed to actually campaign and run parties, then I think Labour would actually undergo serious internal reforms. But while the Conservatives have so much more money available, Labour needs to butter up as many people as possible.