Eric Heffer wants to strengthen the unliullwhich has always occu is g-calesl advantage.
If the leadership was elected by a ballot at union and Labour branch meetings, would CIl participation at would courage these meetings. politicise the unions and force the contenders for leadership elections to put their case openly to trade union members through existing labour movement structures.
It would allow the left to expose the right wing's call for person, one would exclude union par vote' fake ticipation. The left could then lead the campaign for Just as good is the sugfor a division the block vote, according to minority and majority views in the unions.
be elected according to majority and minority OUSL tions, how is the union to determine the strength of these positions among its members?
But only is open discussion in the unions, and if minorities Call proper!! гер•esented at al levels of decision making, possible for the to take representative decisions and hold democratic elections thus ensuring members feel they have a teal stake in future Labour government.
However there alc weaknesses in uric HeIfer's arguments. By supconference, he contradicts his other arguments. If he arguing that unionists paying LUC political levy should have their votes counted equally with individual members at Constica level principle socialists should - then this should not be national contraullicu level.
Moreover, if the block vote was democratised by being divided between majority and minority postleaders would no longer be able to sledgehammer con ference into what they wanted without reference to their members.
most important A special leaflet, Realities Behind the Slogan', the Campaign 10 Park Drive, 7SH (Telephone: Party and the trade unions by setting out proposals that can lead to gicale.
- and that can only be to the benefit of the labour movement.
'One member One Vote is available for London NW11 01-458 1501).