Jeremy Corbyn
is outlining plans for a “democratic
revolution” in Labour that will give individual members more say over party
policy. This will include online ballots and a review of the powers of Labour’s
National Executive Committee (currently elected every two years by party
members like me).
The measures
would therefore move things away from the status quo, whereby official party
policy is mostly decided by a mix of the party leadership, the National Policy
Forum (also elected by members) and motions at our annual conferences. They
also fit into the broader vogue to open up democracy and shift away from
top-down representative systems that we’ve seen in recent years, which I’ve at
times been favourable to (I’ve blogged in support of recall
for MPs, the EU
referendum and electing Britain’s
EU commissioner, for example).
However, I
must say that speaking as one of the rank-and-file party members Jeremy is
offering to empower, I actually believe this particular reform to Labour’s
internal democratic procedures would do more harm than good. The pitch sounds
instinctive and fair enough ("To many, it's felt like a small cabal in
Westminster decides, while you're expected to be loyal foot soldiers pounding
the streets for Labour”, he’s said), but the problems are twofold.
The first is basically a question of expertise
and coherence. The reason I’m satisfied with Labour’s current representative
model for policymaking is that as the country’s official opposition, ideally
aspiring to be its government, a rigorous policymaking process is vital. The people
Labour has in public office and those I’m able to elect to bodies like the NPF can
devote their time to scrutinising ideas and ensuring that they are workable and
costed. It also leaves room for the central party to consult expert voices from
relevant fields and sectors, assuring that the well-intentioned aims of our
party faithful are leavened with real-world practicality. As a member, I of
course want a say, but I’m also mindful of the limits of my policy knowledge,
and of the fact that my party is nothing unless its manifesto is credible. The
Labour movement is bigger than me, and our processes must reflect that.
One cautionary tale is what happened to the Lib
Dems, which had long prided themselves on being the most internally democratic
of the main parties. It
is documented that Nick Clegg, David Laws and others resisted a motion at their
2009 party conference that committed the party to abolishing tuition fees
outright, at a point in time when the size of the national deficit was public
knowledge and even the NUS had shifted away from all-out opposition to fees.
However, the motion passed anyway, due to strong support among the party’s
grassroots for the pledge, and the issue went on to wreck the party’s
reputation in government. This doesn’t exonerate Clegg, by the way (if he had
doubts, no one forced him to put the issue front and centre in the 2010
campaign and quite so thoroughly mislead young Lib Dem-inclined voters). But the
whole saga is still a stark reminder about the need to strike a balance between
activists and the instincts of those looking at the hard numbers.
Further, from a point of view of message and
strategy, there’s also an importance in making sure not only that individual
policies are sound, but also that they fit together. Here Labour’s own history
is a warning. I’ll forgo the obligatory Gerald Kaufman quote, but Labour’s 1983
manifesto was effectively a collection of the party’s conference motions at the
time. To win, Labour has to present a governing programme for Britain
projecting a unified vision, not a laundry list bodged together bit-by-bit. This
was also a criticism of the party's 2015 agenda (“Vote Labour, win a microwave", as
David Axelrod acerbically put it), but proposals to weaken central direction will
only make a tough job even tougher.
Then, there’s the second issue,
representativeness, which goes to the heart of the current challenges facing
Labour. 422,871
people voted in our leadership contest (including registered/affiliated
supporters) and our core membership has doubled to 370,658
since May, compared to a total Conservative membership of around 150,000. Even
some of Jeremy Corbyn’s harshest critics agree these numbers are a testament to the
enthusiasm he has almost single-handedly generated. However, this must also be
taken in context:
- Even before the post-May increase, Labour still had a larger (and more active) membership than the Conservatives – this did not prevent us from losing the election
- As an aside, Labour also won elections under Attlee, Wilson and Blair in eras when the Conservative membership tended to be larger than Labour’s (and with the exception of Blair, in times when Labour members lacked the right to vote even on who the leader was – the decision was exclusive to MPs until 1981)
- The net increases in our membership mask recent resignations by more moderate members who voted for Cooper, Burnham or Kendall in the summer – a senior MP told the New Statesman 25 have left for every 75 new signups
- Signups were mainly 2015 Labour voters or were specifically Corbyn supporters who found the party too right-wing in May, as opposed to those who hesitated to back Labour for other common reasons reported by pollsters and Labour canvassers – one shadow cabinet minister cautioned that Labour is “getting deeper, not wider”
- The enlarged membership is equivalent to around 5% of the 9.3 million who voted Labour in May 2015, and the views of the membership are not necessarily representative of them (or of Labour’s current support)
- The membership are even less representative of the UK as a whole (relevant as even those 9.3 million votes still weren’t enough to elect a Labour government and because any government is somewhat beholden even to those who didn’t vote for it)
Labour should of course continue its efforts to
expand the ranks of both members and supporters, but my point here isn’t that
failing to be a flawless microcosm is an inherent problem for Labour. It’s
not possible or in some respects even desirable for a socialist/social-democratic party that aims
to move the country leftward to be wholly representative, and YouGov data found
that even members voting for Cooper, Burnham and Kendall were markedly
to the left of public opinion in their self-description and attitudes to
public ownership and redistribution of wealth. Further, though political party
membership in the UK has declined, it’s long been very much a minority pursuit
anyway (1% of the population now, down from a whopping 3.8% in that 'golden age' political types obsess over). But building coalitions to win elections does demand a constant,
vigilant self-awareness that we’re not representative, and I
increasingly fear we’re failing to demonstrate that.
For example, Labour MPs are coming under intense
grassroots pressure to back the leadership’s stances when their own views conflict, at
which point a common response from Corbyn supporters is that MPs should simply “respect
his mandate” (i.e. 59.5% of the 0.5% of all Britons who voted in our internal
leadership contest, seemingly regardless of MPs’ individual judgment and
without reference to the millions of constituents that elected them in May). More
worryingly, Jeremy Corbyn himself explained
these proposed reforms by saying "It's about being open to the people
we seek to represent”, a statement that risks defining “the people we seek to
represent” strictly as current party members like me.
In sum, I recognise that Jeremy’s best
intention here is to make the party in some sense more representative and
accessible. But considered in context, I fear that these reforms will do the
precise opposite, severely constricting Labour’s ability to craft credible
policy on behalf of our potential voters at large, let alone the entire
country. I’m glad that my party gives me a vote for leader and for deputy,
local candidates and NPF/NEC representatives, on top of the ability to vote on policy submissions at my CLP and speak out generally (as I'm doing by writing this). But the Labour movement must be far,
far bigger than a few hundred thousand of us if it is to succeed, and these
proposals will jeopardise that. We must reconsider.
So basically you are saying Labour heirarchy know better than the rank & file. That attitude lost us the last election.
ReplyDeleteMany things lost us the last election, but I wouldn't say that was one. As I note in the blog, Labour's won before with a smaller membership that lacked even basic internal voting rights (e.g. for leader). I'd also add that the Tories are able to beat us in elections despite being a "elected dictatorship qualified only by regicide" (in the words of William Hague). State your case that giving the membership vastly more control over policy will result in election wins, or would have prevented the result in May?
DeleteI could not have put it better myself, but with one caveat. There are rank and file members, I count myself one of these, who have expertise in policy areas that would be of help to the party. There seems to be no route, currently, by which we may put our knowledge, experience and expertise at the party's disposal.
ReplyDeleteWe are not SPADs, policy wonks or thinktank members, but we have worked, quite often at the sharp end of organisations working in all three sectors of the economy. I am, even though a public sector manager of 27 years experience, specialising in economic and social regeneration, rather saddened that New, New Labour does seem to be rather forgetting the role and importance of the voluntary and community sector.
Labour's roots are as much in the VCS as anywhere else and I am getting a sense that it is people with VCS backgrounds who are making up some of our new members. One wonders how long they will remain, given the shenanigans of Momentum and some of the very negative views some Corbyn supporters have towards the VCS. I rather lost it when I read a blog describing a self financing (through a recycling project), half way house for the homeless described as a workhouse.
Labour seems, as another blogger (https://jadeazim.wordpress.com/2015/11/22/sod-it/) has put it, more middle class and stridently left wing as any of us are able to remember. We are becoming exclusive and not inclusive (http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/sep/12/labour-leadership-result-shows-how-fast-party-is-changing). A point underlined by the fact that for this leadership election "ballot papers were only sent to political levy-payers who had been recruited to become registered party supporters by their union. A total of 148,192 ballot papers were sent out to this group but only 71,546 were returned."
We have increased our membership, but we may, in the process, be losing the people who pay Labour's bills and provide boots on the ground at election time. That can only get worse if we fail to ignore their individual concerns when developing and framing policy.
Oh I absolutely agree on harnessing the expertise of some of our membership where appropriate. I'm a member of the Labour Finance & Industry Group, an affiliated socialist society for Labour members who work in the private sector or who are otherwise interested in business and economic policy, LFIG has worked closely with the leadership and frontbench to feed in policy ideas, from members operating in an area where the party's links aren't always as good as I'd like them to be (LFIG worked on harnessing public procurement, rights for the self-employed and takeover policy in the Miliband era). But as I said, it's just about striking a balance - the current channels for the membership to influence policy can be looked at, but I don't think a radical change would be wise for all the reasons I outlined above.
DeleteI also completely agree on VCS - I actually work in the sector myself at a small management consultancy for charities, social enterprise & housing associations, based in a local hub for sector organisations. And you're right about Labour's roots in civil society - I think the Blue Labour tendency in the party has been right to highlight that, and I personally backed Liz Kendall in the leadership contest in part because of her patter about civil society being "where Labour came from". I wrote this on our third sector policy last year:
http://ebidgood.blogspot.co.uk/2014/08/what-might-labour-government-mean-for.html