One of the many puzzling things about the decision by the NEC majority to suspend NEC and group elections for up to a year is that of timing.
At national conference in 2014 we were assured by the leadership that the union was not going broke and that financial pressure was not a factor in their push towards merging with Unite. Things have obviously changed but nevertheless at the first NEC meeting in December no proposal was made to suspend elections. This only happened at an emergency NEC later in December. So why have one NEC and then shortly afterward have another?
The most charitable explanation is that something happened after the first NEC that convinced the leadership that a second one was needed in order to halt voting for the time being.
Equally, in the absence of any contrary evidence, it could be that they realised that they should have raised it at the first NEC but had not done so for some reason i.e. they were incompetent and mucked up.
Lastly, and equally plausible, in the absence of any contrary evidence, the leadership waited until later in December when less people, and hence possibly less potential oppositionists, could make an NEC meeting. Also as it was later in the year there would be less time before the Christmas and New Year shut down to mobilise opposition i.e. the leadership were cynical.
Someone in the leadership should explain why two NECs were needed in December – with the accompanying expense! Was it incompetency, a sudden event that changed their minds or was it good old fashioned cynicism. The membership, even if denied a vote for the time being, should be told.