Internal party democracy - let's have a heated debate
Recently I corresponded with my friend and Labour activist Emma Burnell who blogs at Scarlet Standard. I was interested in her views on internal party democracy in the light of some recent stirrings on that theme in the blogosphere.
Here are our exchanges:
Dear Emma
I recently read Alex Hilton's
recent piece on LabourList "Losing Faith" which strongly criticised the approach of the Labour
Party and given our previous conversations about internal party democracy
regarding Lib Dems and Labour, I was interested in your views.
As an active member of the
Lib Dems, one of the things I find most satisfying is knowing that my views and
my vote as a voting rep at conference can and does have an effect on party
policy and of course more recently on government policy.
One of the most striking
comments from Alex's piece about Labour for me was this:
"We’re an illiberal
elitist capitalist party with no taste for democracy and a misplaced belief
that the masses are better off in our care than that of other parties."
I only became active in
politics a few years ago despite having been interested in (some would say
obsessed with) it for nearly 20 years. I could not have considered joining the
Labour Party though, not just because of the policies it was pursuing that I
profoundly disagreed with but because the members of the party no longer get to
make its policy so I'd have no chance of changing this. When Alex says the
party has no taste for democracy I suspect this is one of the things to which
he is referring.
I understand why Tony Blair
wanted to wrest control of his party from its members. I recall watching Labour
conferences in the years before he became leader and I can appreciate that to
some it would have appeared unedifyingly divided. But that is the price of
democracy. The Tories have always been a very top-down party. The tragedy is
that Labour have followed them down this road, rather than reforming its
internal democracy in a way which could have allowed its members to still have
a big say in its direction and policy.
Instead we have had the even
more unedifying sight of policies being announced that have clearly been
scribbled on the back of a fag packet by a junior SpAd 30 minutes before the
leader's speech to conference on far too many occasions (Gordon Brown's
supervised communal houses for teenage mums anyone?).
Ed Miliband's "Refounding
Labour" project appears to have petered out to very little effect and one
of his "boldest" moves was actually to further reduce internal
democracy by ceasing elections to shadow cabinet.
If I was again looking to
join a political party I could still not contemplate making it Labour even if I
agreed with lots of its current policies.
I think that should worry
dedicated and committed members of the party such as yourself.
Best regards,
Mark.
Dear Mark,
I too read Alex’s piece on
LabourList, though with more sorrow than recognition.
I am sorry Alex has worked
himself up into this state, but his characterisation of both Ed’s leadership,
and the changes to the processes of the Labour Party are unrecognisable to me.
I fear both yourself and Alex are looking for a “big bang” in a Party that has
long accepted a gradualist approach to our evolution.
Some of the changes in
Refounding Labour will make an enormous difference to Labour in the long term,
without having an immediate effect the day the ink dried on the document.
There are real changes to the
nature of the relationship between the central and local Parties. Empowering
Constituency Labour Parties (CLPs) to organise in the way that works for them
locally will ensure better engagement with our power and decision making
structures from all CLPs including those in areas that don’t have a Labour MP,
and will give them better resources to organise themselves. These may seem
small, but over time, will change the culture of the Party.
Equally, the Shadow Cabinet
elections are a complete red herring. They aren’t elected by the Party, but by
the tiny electorate of MPsThe Leader is democratically elected though our
agreed internal processes (the only process of any Party which brings in those outside
the Party, by giving the vote to individual union members). He has far more of
a mandate to shape the Party, including who he wants to take each issue
forward, than the tiny electorate of MPs.
Refounding Labour has
finished the aspects that looked at Party organisation, but continues to look
at our policy making processes. Opening these up more to Party members and
strengthening the role of the National Policy Forum were both agreed by
Refounding Labour, but the more complex details of how are being consulted on
now.
So for me the picture of
internal Labour Party democracy is neither as settled nor as bleak as you or
Alex makes out.
Balancing competing
democratic mandates in these situations is not clear cut, as your Party is
discovering to its cost on issue after issue. Post Refounding Labour, we are
improving, if gradually, where other Parties are not, and in fact are reneging
on the things, in the past, activists like you have been so proud of.
You and I are in very
different political parties because we have very different political
priorities. I am happy to accept that sometimes liberal outcomes come from
enforced means. You seem happier to accept unequal outcomes as long as the
means are ostensibly fair. I think that’s probably true of our approaches to
internal democracy. I want something that will have an obvious and claimable
output in Government. You seem happy to set policies for a Party that will
never, ever enact them, despite being in Government.
Kind regards,
Emma.
Dear Emma
I admire your faith in the
processes set in train by Refounding Labour but I fear that without a solid
democratic process underpinning it (e.g. reps voting on policy at conference)
then it will be all too easy for the party leadership to ride roughshod over what
members such as yourself want.
You are correct in your
assertion that we have very different political priorities. For me and most
fellow Lib Dems, liberty is a fundamental part of my political philosophy.
I find your final comment
rather strange: “You seem happy to set policies for a Party that will never,
ever enact them, despite being in Government”. This is difficult for me to
reconcile with the facts. Research by the BBC last year showed that 75% of the
Lib Dem manifesto is included in the government programme as opposed to 60%
from the Conservatives. Lots of policies voted on by myself and my fellow Lib
Dem members are now being implemented and making a difference to people’s
lives.
Where I agree with you is
that it is a difficult call to determine what gets priority and that is one
thing that I very much think needs reform within the Lib Dems. We need an
agreed mechanism for communicating which policies are most important to the members
to ensure they end up being the “red lines” in any future negotiations. This
won’t be straightforward as showing your hand early makes negotiating harder
but who said politics was easy?!
Labour had 13 years of
untrammelled power with large majorities and was able to implement its
programme in full. The Lib Dems only have about a sixth of the MPs in
government and hence have to compromise. It’s in the nature of coalition. I
think sometimes Labour activists and politicians such as yourself (perhaps sometimes
willfully) forget this with calls of “betrayal” and “selling out”. The logical
conclusion of those saying that is the Lib Dems should never be in government
unless governing alone. And of course had the party eschewed the opportunity in
May 2010 those same people would be deriding them as a “wasted vote” and not a
party serious about power.
It’s almost as if we can’t
ever win!
Best regards,
Mark.
Dear Mark,
The Labour Party does have a
process whereby elected representatives discuss and produce policy on a year
round basis. It’s called the National Policy Forum (NPF). It has representative
elected from all the different sections of the broad Labour family, including
members, MEPs, MPs, Socialist Societies and the unions. While sometimes this body
doesn’t work as well as it might, it does come into its own during the manifesto
process which is negotiated through this body. Policy papers proposed by the
NPF are also ratified by a vote at conference. It is this process that is
continuing to be strengthened in the last remaining part of the Refounding
Labour process.
Sometimes, it’s not about
“winning” but about doing the right thing and being honest. And you aren’t
being honest – I suspect even to yourself.
The research you refer to is
incredibly flawed. In practically every piece of legislation ever enacted there
are good and bad things. There is even some good in the appalling Health and
Social Care Bill, though not nearly enough to make it worthwhile or to convince
me it shouldn’t be dropped. You managed to get some fairly innocuous measures
into what are otherwise terrible bills. Equally, counted as part of these
figures is the AV referendum: A classic example of claiming a victory while
changing precisely nothing. Next stop, Lords reform.
You claim a democratic
mandate from your members to the Government – or at the least the MPs and Peers
who represent your Party. Tell that to the delegates to your conference who
voted overwhelmingly to protect ESA who have had their “faith
shattered” and are wondering whatever
happened to democracy in the Lib Dems.
Equally, you also told voters
one thing and then did another when elected. This is where you miss the point
on “betrayal”. You haven’t betrayed Labour – you’ve betrayed your voters.
As Labour struggle towards improving
our internal processes for the 21st century, yours are crumbling under the new strain of Government.
Unless that is recognised and dealt with now, you will lose for good any sense
that activists have a say that makes a difference.
Labour isn’t perfect on this
score. We have a long way to go. But of the two parties, I’m confident that
we’re the one moving in the right direction.
Kind regards,
Emma.
No comments:
Post a Comment