Sir, – Members of the Labour Party are very unhappy that they were not involved with the election of a new party leader and at the failure to engage with and consult them. However, what’s done is done, but I would urge the new leader to find a mechanism to reach out to the members who are hurting from the devastating election result and the criticism they endured while their party was in government and defending the impossible.
The rebuilding of support for Labour is going to be a very difficult task that will fall to members, and they must feel included in the party if there is to be a future. Entering coalition with Fine Gael down through the years gave the impression that Labour was closely aligned to Fine Gael’s politics and right-wing beliefs. The time has come for the party to spend the future demonstrating the uniqueness of the party that Connolly and Larkin founded.
The wedding of Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil should make it obvious that the future of Labour is representing democratic socialism, which can only be done with the full support of Labour’s ordinary members, who must be constantly consulted and allowed full participation in decision-making now and into the future if the party is to have a future. – Yours, etc,
EAMONN WALSH,
Dublin 12.
Sir, – Alan Kelly has said that he was "upset and annoyed" at the "lack of democracy" involved in Brendan Howlin's election as leader of Labour. Mr Kelly claims that "three people got to decide for 4,000 members" (Vivienne Clarke, "I must be the most over-psychoanalysed politician", May 23rd).
Far be it from me to seek to educate members of the Labour Party on their own rulebook, but Article 12.7 of the Labour Party constitution says that candidates for the party leadership “shall be proposed and seconded by members of Dáil Éireann”.
This means that any candidate for the leadership needs the support of at least one other TD and clearly envisages a situation where there would only be one candidate for the position if a candidate failed to get the backing of another TD. This is what happened last week, but it is also exactly what happened when Eamon Gilmore was elected leader unopposed in September 2007.
There have been six party conferences since 2007. If Labour Party members were so appalled by the thought of a leader being unopposed, then surely they would have taken one of these several opportunities to change this rule in the wake of Mr Gilmore’s election?
Labour members can hardly wash their hands of the operation of a set of rules that they themselves adopted and had ample time to amend.
A process isn’t “undemocratic” just because you don’t agree with the result. – Yours, etc,
BARRY WALSH,
Clontarf, Dublin 3.