ecutive Committee, jority decision was to give ultimate control to an entirely new tier in the Labour Party structure, which until then had been suggested by no To some extent we should welcome the commission's recognition of the need for expanding the electorate of the leader of the party with the implication that the leader should.be accountable to the whole party. However, the proposed structure of the electoral college is fundamentally different from that of the electoral college advocated by the mobilising comIts size and composition (50 per cent MPs, 25 per cent trade unions, 20 per cent constituency parties and 5 per cent socialist societies -and only about 100 people in all) render it bareanyone and in cuce cl shrines the parliamentary veto.
Its members could be only indirectly elected (before the candidates are announced and unmandateable) so that the participation of the and file would be organisations would be effectively disenfranUsurp Since it would be totally separate from the existing structures in the party, it would usurp many of the functions and ference. Since all 50 MPs in the college would "manifesto) group, and would need onivine majority more vote (that of Terry Duffy) to be a majority, it would actually increase the powers of the parliamentary party to make policy. but the commission maMOBILISE FOR The difference is enormous but confusing - which highlights the danger of the electoral college. The commission majority realised that a defence of the status quo was politically