It wasn't quite like that, though. It wasn't the shortened process which riled the membership (of which I was one of the incredibly vocal ones... hell, I even brought it up at the conference!) but I get what you mean and I don't really want to dredge the past for the sake of it.cabalamat wrote:tuoni wrote:I'd like to think that anyone who was serious about taking any role, whether it be on the board or the NEC would be able to nominate themselves within the timeframe if they have the motivation to do the job.azrael wrote:curious as to other people's opinion on leader being open for noms longer.
If anything, I would say the Leader role should be
strictly the shortestthe most strictly adhered to since we don't want a drawn-out period without a party leader.
That's a good point. OTOH, the last time we had an election for party leader, there were accusations that the NEC was trying to have a deliberately shortened process, in order to favour their preferred candidate for leader (who was at the time an NEC member). If there is internal acrimony, it harms the party and distracts us from our task of winning over the British people to our point of view.
What needs to be done is just to make sure that the wording is explicit. I don't think making a special case of the leader is a good thing and I think extending the period for nominations for that role is actually a bad thing.