WeeklyWorker

12.03.2026

How not to do democracy

Abridged report from Grassroots Left CEC members

The meeting was fraught, with sound issues with the hybrid set-up meaning it started 20 minutes late, and not enough time was allocated for democratic discussion and debate.

It was a highly unusual meeting, with papers circulated less than 24 hours in advance, changes to the papers made in the night, CEC members not having sight of amendments before voting and incredibly limited debate. Only 30 seconds was allocated for the proposers of motions or amendments to speak on them, with no room for other perspectives. We did make the point during the meeting that we would like to hear why CEC members were voting against amendments. We were then offered an explanation as to why some members voted against a few points, but after that the explanations promptly stopped.

The key points and submissions we tried to put forward were interventions on the grounds of democracy, accountability and healthy debate, as well as points on ensuring our party is inclusive and anti-racist. Many of the amendments would have brought the standing orders, code of conduct and officer role descriptions in line with the wider trade union and other movements and we do not feel that they were controversial or unusual. These amendments were voted down in their entirety, with the exception of one.

We went into this CEC meeting apprehensive, as in our introductory meeting and emails to the interim chair we had continuously stated that the allotted time for this meeting was not long enough. These calls for extension to a full day had been ignored, with only 45 minutes additional time agreed. A longer meeting would have ensured we could democratically co-create, debate and agree on the CEC’s founding documents. These documents were some of the most important that the CEC will agree, as they set the tone, precedent and operational reality of the committee.

We are concerned that the documents passed at this meeting may amount to the CEC being collective in name only, and real power being held in the hands of the officers group and the ‘secretariat’ (staff). We are, of course, not opposed to an officers group, and staff are a necessity in any large party - but these groups should be for practical purposes only and should report to the wider CEC, where decisions should be made.

As expected, we did not get to several items on our agenda. Most notably, branch formation, which was put at the end of the agenda, with no papers shared ahead of time. We know members will be disappointed by this and many of them contacted us before the meeting to express that they wanted their branches set up as soon as possible. As we did prior to this meeting, we will request that an appropriate amount of time is set by the chair, who now has sole responsibility and authority over setting agendas and timings, to discuss this properly. We don’t believe any of these processes should be rushed through at the expense of democracy, but they should be urgently addressed.

CEC members still have no real way of contacting each other, with all emails going through the general Your Party email, which is monitored by staff and all members can use. None of us have ever had a response from that email address, other than the same automatic reply many of you may have received.

Throughout the meeting, it was mentioned that amendments raised were slowing down business. However, we believe it is our responsibility as members of the collective leadership of a democratic socialist party to represent the will of the membership. Our members continue to tell us that they want more transparency and a party that is truly run by them. As such, it was important to suggest amendments, where pre-defined papers raised questions or concerns about them. There was no time to debate or discuss. Solma tried to raise this and ask the chair for time to discuss early in the meeting. This was met with Solma being muted. In short, there was no time for democracy.

The draft standing orders stated that the regularity of meetings will be decided by the CEC, which we deemed to be vague, and at risk of enabling infrequent full CEC sessions akin to the Labour Party NEC. This would likely see the officer group or the secretariat running the party in the meantime, counter to the collective leadership that members voted for. Our amendment stated that, during this foundational stage, the CEC should meet weekly online for two hours, plus a monthly meeting for a day in length, which should be hybrid and rotated around the regions and nations for accessibility.

The next amendment on the sovereignty of the CEC proposed that it should be up to the CEC to decide on confidential items in meetings, rather than being instructed by the officer group or secretariat. It also proposed that topics may be revisited within three months where necessary, contrary to the drafted standing orders. One CEC member spoke against that amendment by saying it could be a recipe to discuss the same issue over and over again.

The next amendment stated that the identities of the secretariat should be available to all Your Party members (as many of our members have been asking), and that minutes of their meetings should be reported to the CEC. It also stated that they should be subject to recall. There was an argument against the amendment regarding references on social media about ‘unelected bureaucrats’, which the speaker felt the naming of staff could worsen. At this point, Sophie Wilson expressed willingness to remove the section on staff names being public as a friendly amendment.

The next amendment was on CEC meeting sections and stated that CEC meetings should be separated into parts, with some reserved for CEC members, and others with the secretariat in attendance. The amendment also stated that confidential business could be taken in one part, with public discussion in another part. Sophie Wilson stated that this is common practice in the trade union and labour movement. There were no speakers against.

The next amendment was on limiting the chair’s power and would have reduced the number of votes needed to overrule the chair from a two-thirds vote to a simple majority. It also removed their right to decide, alongside the secretary, which motions feature on the agenda. We believed that it would be more collaborative to hold a priority ballot on agenda items based on members’ submissions. A speaker against the amendment shared that it could be a recipe for the dysfunction of the committee and would lead to instability.

The next amendment was on ways of working for the CEC and officer group and stated that a vote of no confidence in an officer would require a simple majority rather than a two thirds majority, and could be tabled at any CEC meeting rather than just the AGM, as proposed. It also removed the sections about operational, finance and regulatory matters being reserved for the officer group, and instead stated that the full CEC was responsible for these.

There were reports on electoral and regulatory matters, staffing and the financial position of the party. In Tuesday’s meeting we were told they would be sent in writing, but they were not. Currently the party is spending £16,000 a month on staffing, plus £7,000 on seconded staff from the Peace and Justice Project. It was also reported that Your Party needs to create ‘accounting units’ with the electoral commission in order for branches to receive funds. It was stated that all papers and handover documents will be given to the officer group rather than the full CEC.

Naomi Wimborne-Idrissi raised the reporting from the electoral commission on donations to political parties in the fourth quarter of 2025. Circa £600,000 represents transfers from MOU Ltd to Your Party, but there is further money to come at a time when branches are crying out for funds. Zarah Sultana made it clear that MOU is not a block and wants to transfer all remaining funds to Your Party to support branches, elections and campaigns. A point of order was raised about a conflict of interest and that financial matters need to go through the officer group, so the discussion ended. The point of order had 14 votes in favour, with 9 votes against.

We asked the following questions and all were unanswered. We were told that the officer group would look into this and report back.

Our amendment stated that any independent community groups we work with across the regions and nations in May 2025 should have explicitly socialist principles reflected in their founding documents or constitution, on the basis that Your Party is an inherently socialist party. A CEC member spoke against the amendment, characterising it as a form of “purity testing”.

The paper was passed with 14 in favour and 7 abstentions. Contributors to this report abstained, as, while we agree that it is vital to stand candidates in the May elections, this paper was incredibly vague, and problematic in parts, as detailed above.

A full report is available at: docs.google.com/document/d/1Iyy-Q5kNpE7ovmXyl44ok68GuEHBEOa87lDLdI-rVYw/edit?usp=sharingIntroduction