The rules changes last year gave the NEC more veto power over constituency party decisions. This, I believe, was so that motions in support of Corbyn or in solidarity with expelled members, or even the sharing of information like letters of resignation could be suppressed.
You may be right, or not, with the reasoning behind these rule changes. When you say "I believe" is this because you have seen evidence it is true or because of what you believe the reasoning to be. I do not necessarily see it as unfair in general that a large organisation would want to ensure consistency of approach across its constituent parts.
They also upped the number of local votes needed to recall an elected MP or councillor, part of the hardly used but important means to hold them accountable to their electors.
I also believe that there is a debate to be had about the number of local votes needed for a recall to ensure the system cannot be abused or swayed by a small number. I do not know what the optimum number should be.
There is quite a lot to indicate the right wing of the party actively undermined the second general election for Labour, diverting funds to safe seats, and spreading false accusations of anti-semitism.
The political situation in the middle east is not as comfortable as here. Can we let that pass in order to appease stealth fascism in our back yard? Hell!
From what I read in the highly partisan Novara about communications between party officers it shows shameful attitudes in a dysfunctional party, which has been going on for years, but not an active undermining of the party's election chances. I have no doubt that similar communications would take place in reverse within the party about a Starmer led election.
The anti-semitism debate has certainly been overblown, especiall wrt Corbyn, but I didn't realise all the allegations about anti-semitism within the party were false.
Stealth fascism here or in the Middle East?
Starmer and
Evans have been furiously trying to rewrite the rules, and attempted to abolish one-member-one-vote. They didn't get away with that, but they did succeed in transferring more power to MPs by moving the leadership nomination bar. These people are terrified of
democracy. Instead of handwringing over what you dismiss as infighting or bickering without bothering about the detail of who is doing what to whom, why not try directing your irritation at the leadership when it is
waging war on its own members?
I do not see the rule changes as "waging war on its own members", but more a reasonable system to install checks and balances between members, constituencies, affiliates and elected MPs, especially not giving registered members a vote in the election. At the vote stage the members still have the final say.
There is no one single form of democracy for a country and certainly not for an organisation where self-selecting people pay a fee to join and vote to influence issues.
