Is the PLP’s core identity being tested by its internal leadership election?
Is the PLP’s core identity being tested by its internal leadership election?
An apparent influx of OBA converts triggered moves to limit the influence of all newcomers and vet others.
PLP Leader David Burt broke his silence on the matter last week – and raised further questions about the attempts to amend membership rules.
Gary Foster Skelton presents a political overview of the situation.
WATCH the report above. Transcription below…
Just how much influence could former OBA members or supporters of other parties have on the PLP’s internal leadership election?
This is clearly an area of concern amongst the party faithful – resulting in efforts to amend membership rules.
As we’ve reported previously, the PLP Central Committee passed two amendments on August 24th – the first seeks to vet new members coming from other parties; the second requires new members to wait a year before they are eligible to become delegates – and only delegates can vote for the next party leader at the Annual General Conference.
Both amendments are currently blocked by a court injunction acquired by leadership contender Curtis Dickinson.
Regarding the first amendment, comments from PLP Leader David Burt last week suggest the risk of alleged political interlopers is proportionately small…
He said, “let’s pretend there’s about 4000 members of the Progressive Labor Party. This might apply to ten people in total. We’re not talking about – exactly, we’re not talking about a large amount of people…
“Most people who were candidates for the One Bermuda Alliance aren’t joining the Progressive Labor Party. But there were a few instances that were reported.”
Other sources have told us that there may be more than a hundred new members who have come from other parties.
Is there a risk that such a number could alter the DNA of the PLP, and affect the result of this leadership election?
…And are there some who believe that all new members in this election carry the risk of being OBA or FDM trespassers – or at least of not being in sync with the PLP’s core goals?
Last week, we asked the PLP Leader about the other change that had been put forward…
GFS: “…there was a Second Amendment proposed as well that will require new party members to wait a year before they could become a delegate, which was one of the things a delegate can do is vote in a leadership election.”
David Burt, PLP Leader: “Well, vote in any election inside the party, because delegates are the ones who are responsible for selecting the party executive… This was not to say that new members could not vote… This was saying that new members are not eligible to be elected as a delegate for a year, or in the party executive position.”
GFS: “So, they could vote in the branch?”
David Burt, PLP Leader: “Absolutely…”
Limiting the influence of new members is not uncommon in political parties across the world. The PLP LEader added that, in most parties, there’s a period of service before you can vote at all.
…but the Central Committee tried to change these rules in the middle of an election campaign – moving the stumps as the bowler makes his run-up, if you will.
In fact, the rule changes were voted on and backed by the C.C. not once, but twice, in two separate meetings.
The message from party HQ is clear – ‘we don’t want former OBA members or those from other political entities automatically joining our party’.
…but only the first amendment specifically targets such individuals.
The second amendment affects all new members, and could significantly impact any leadership candidate who has successfully brought in new PLP members during his or her election campaign.
We’ve asked the campaign offices of both Jason Hayward and Curtis Dickinson to tell us how many new PLP memberships each of their camps has brought in. Mr Hayward couldn’t give us a number, and Mr Dickinson’s office had not responded as of news time.
Sources tell us that Mr. Dickinson may have brought in between 1,500 and 2,000. Critics of the Dickinson camp suggest the numbers have been inflated – and that the number is no higher than 500 new members.
Either way, Mr Dickinson appears to be the candidate who has the most to lose from any changes to membership rules – hence the legal fight.
He is seen as being on the centre-right – or fiscally conservative wing – of the PLP, and is therefore more appealing to erstwhile OBA supporters than Jason Hayward, who comes from a union background.
The PLP has always been tight-lipped about internal party matters, and we know little about the discussions within the Central Committee or the nature of any debate that might have followed.
What we do know is that the two amendments were proposed and voted on separately. Whether the first amendment – the headline-grabbing, politically pungent one that blocks former OBA members – was pushed harder than the second, more consequential amendment – which effectively limits the influence of all new party members… this, we just don’t know.
We do know that they were both presented at the same meetings, and one might wonder if the two issues were perceived as two sides of the same coin… but this is conjecture.
It remains fair to ask – why now? Why amend the rules after a leadership campaign has already started?
They didn’t change the rules for previous PLP leadership elections – including when David Burt beat Dennis Lister, when Marc Bean beat Walton Brown, when Paula Cox beat Terry Lister, when Dr Ewart Brown beat Alex Scott…
…any of those candidates who brought in new members, building up the grass roots of the party per se, could do so while drawing support for their campaign.
Outgoing PLP leader David Burt actually called for a membership drive at last year’s Annual General Conference, saying that “we must be ready to invite first time voters, returning students, young professionals, and those who have never joined any political party before.”
Is this a case of, ‘be careful what you wish for’?
For the time being at least, leadership contender Curtis Dickinson has successfully acquired a court injunction against the two new amendments.
His lawyers argued that the process used to implement the changes was against the PLP Constitution.
In broader terms, the battle lines are fairly clear; Curtis Dickinson believes it’s wrong to move the goalposts mid-game, and the PLP’s Central Committee doesn’t want political outsiders lacing up for the home team.
With the leadership election just over a month away, it’s all to play for.
