May
18
I was pleased to hear David Miliband set out his commitment to reform the Labour Party in his announcement speech yesterday. And in citing Phil Wilson MP he is talking to someone who has given the issue a lot of thought.
But anyone who thinks that a central issue of Labour Party reform is what the local GC is for, who should go and where and when it should be held is both mistaken and deeply unambitious.
The first big push to deal with local party structures that I remember was in 1998-00 when I was a newly elected Chair of my CLP. It was a deeply flawed process – trying to move to a more fluid system by replacing one set of meetings with another – rather than looking at what people wanted to achieve and devising the most effective way to do that. In short, the reformers were trapped by the structure they wanted to scrap. And like so much of New Labour’s managerialism it was a deeply disempowering process. For better of for worse (and usually just beningly) lots of long-serving activists actually like the existing structures and take pride in being elected to positions by their peers.
There’s not a single Labour Party rule that stops a member going out campaigning. And the informal changes brought about by advertising canvassing sessions on Facebook, coupled with the new national phone bank infrastructure means that there is no excuse for people who want to sit in meetings on a weekday evening to argue about the summer barbeque to do so whilst more action-oriented people to follow the tried and trusted practice of the Jehovah Witnesses by door-knocking.
Instead, any serious Labour Party reform has to begin with a settlement about what the party is for: electing and scrutinising politicians, sustaining a Labour government or achieving social justice. From that, a pitch can be made to members and prospective members who can then determine the most effective way of achieving their goals.
This may be obvious but we’re a long way from that at the moment. I wager that no-one has joined the Labour Party in the last year to scrutinise their local councillor for adherence to Labour values. And we have a structure of campaigning and organising that is perfectly suited to electing MPs under a first past the post system but incapable of usefully recording that a resident will split their three votes for local council and vote a different way in the Mayoral race from the parliamentary. And whilst I’ve little doubt that most in the Labour Party want to achieve social change, I bet that in between elections most do so through voluntary or faith groups rather than through the party.
We also need to consider the lessons from government. How does the party maintain its identity, support the government but continue to assert its values where required? Is Labour whatever it’s current prime minister does in office? Is the party his or her’s to be run for their political benefit?
And what does a meaningful trade union link really mean? That the local union branch gets invites to the meetings? Or that they get tutted at for not attending the street stall? That they write the cheques or use their organising skills of Polish-speaking workers to encourage them to register to vote?
And how can a British political party -with all of our cultural traditions – be part of a movement for change alongside other activists?
These are some of the critical issues that excite me about real change in the Party. If it descends into the what and where of GCs we will have failed. But if we can really change the party into a modern force for change – well that would be exciting enough to get me along to my GC!
Related posts:
- A primary vote for Labour Party leader?
- Labour mustn’t falter on party funding
- Cameron mistaken on party funding reform
- Should Labour bother with policymaking?
- Same Old New Labour