You are in the company
of
Roger Warren Evans
Roger Warren Evans
|
|
You are in the company
of
Roger Warren Evans |
|
| Part of www.LivePolitics.net < Back to Home Page |
|
|
item0039C 694, 695 694 21 April 2003 My New Party Line..I have been struggling for some time to find the right "tack" for Labour Party reform. When I wrote last October, I advocated a much closer form of power-sharing between the new salariat and rank-and-file volunteers - a greater role for lay Members in the conduct of Government, and in Party leadership polls. I advocated integration, not separation.
I say now that separation of roles would be preferable. Each element should be given its own "power sector", with the work of Government and Opposition left to the salariat, allowing the volunteers to assume exclusive responsibility for the life of the Labour Party "in the country". This is how I put it, for a forthcoming Tribune article... Renewal from within by Roger Warren Evans Gower CLP For Labour, renewal from within is the only option. Yet the mere reinstatement of the Auld Order within the Party would not suffice. Nor would the mere emergence of new Labour leaders, within the same Party framework.  For the real issue is wider still.
It is the emergence of a new political salariat,
a new salaried political elite, whose interests and perspectives are
manifestly diverging from those of Labour Party members. This consolidates
the apathy and cynicism which is bedevilling political life. The
Constitution of the Labour Party must be reformed, to give both the salariat
and ordinary Party members a proper role within the political
firmament.
Don’t get me wrong: we do need a competent political salariat. The emergence of a salaried political cadre is inevitable, and desirable. The skills of government are distinctive, and must be cultivated. Indeed, this is the inexorable consequence of the process started by the Labour Party itself, in pressing the Liberal Government of 1911 to pay salaries to MPs. The finale was also wished by Labour, with the Local Government Act 2000, which added perhaps 2,500 salaried politicians to our Constitution. They are the “Cabinet Members” of over 400 local authorities. There are now 4,000-or-so members of the UK political salariat, all dependent for their living upon the successful command of the electoral process. Currently, probably 2,000 of these paid politicians are Labour representatives. This phenomenon is rapidly generating new dividing lines, a new “lay” cynicism about the operation of the professionals, new political tensions. And those tensions must be addressed, by Labour Party reform. The Party must acknowledge, and come to terms with, the new dominance of the salariat. My proposal is that control of the Labour Party in the country at large, should be returned to the exclusive control of its voting rank-and-file Members. Party power, since the 1960s, has been captured exclusively by the salariat – they dominate the top posts, the key functions, and the voting processes. That should change. Salaried politicians, while remaining within the Party, should forego their voting and “presiding” rights upon election to any salaried representative position within the Labour Party. All Party officers would be elected from the volunteer rank-and-file. Constituency Labour Parties would be empowered to nominate their own parliamentary candidates, without central intervention or direction. Local members would have entire discretion, at every Election, to select, de-select, or re-select their MP, MEP, AM, MSP or English Regional AM. The Party’s selection process, for every Election, would be automatic. The new relationship would resemble a football club in which the Supporters Club selected the “Squad”, leaving it to the salariat to pick the team and to decide all governmental strategies. This would unleash a huge revival of interest in the local political process, by restoring real power to local Party Members. The Party itself would remain a federation of its affiliated organisations, CLPs, trade unions and socialist societies, as constituted in February 1918. Party Conference would be managed by the rank-and-file, who would of course be free to invite salariat speakers, both from Government and otherwise. The Party would require top-class management staff, but they would be responsible exclusively to the rank-and-file – not to the salariat. And at Conference, CLPs would cast votes weighted according their paid-up membership, thus giving local Parties a strong motive to expand. The Party would certainly formulate its own policies (by poll or Conference Resolution) - but they should be advisory only, with the salariat remaining constitutionally free to disregard them – and to answer for its actions to the Party personally, at succeeding Elections. Party Members would be given new constitutional rights to call for Membership polls, without the consent of the salariat, to test Party opinion.
The other side of the coin would be to allow the salariat to get on with the business of government. The Labour salariats (Westminster, Holyrood, Cardiff Bay) would elect their own Party leaders, reversing the present arrangements. They would not be bound by Conference “policy” decisions, although within the Labour movement they would in practice be held closely to account for any contrary positions. And the new settlement would remove any suggestion that they were mere “delegates”, exercising a constrained discretion. 
What of the trade unions?
They would retain a distinctive position within the life of the Party.
Trade union members (including their leaders) would participate in
the work of the Party as individual members, upon individual application.
TU leaders would play roles both as Party Members in their own right, and as
bearers of the TU “block vote” (which would be retained, in modified form).
Given such a re-balancing of power, many thousands of Labour sympathisers would rally again to Party membership, willing to pay higher Party dues, at perhaps £1 per week. It would become worth being a Member, again. That would transform Party finances. But if the rank-and-file membership is not genuinely empowered, Labour Party ranks will continue to wither away. End If you are a Labour Member, would this suit you? Drop me a line
695 Easter Monday 21 April 2003
Our political institutions encapsulate and express our communal and collective lives. And I understand the campaign by the grassroots Welsh body Cymuned (meaning simply "community") for the re-naming of the great Celtic destinations - I share that feeling - it is absurd that Snowdon should bear an English name! Wales Labour should seek to capture this dimension of cultural heritage. While I am opposed to the use of Welsh on road-signs, I applaud its use in the cultural and geographical culture of my country.
Let me explain. The terms "Welsh" and "Wales" both derive from Old English (specifically, the Kentish dialect of Old English) - from the words welisc, and wealh. And what did the adjective welisc mean? It meant simply foreigner. When the Angles and the Saxons invaded, they found the Welsh in possession of London, and they had fight their way in, taking over and re-naming "England" (after themselves, the Angles..) and forcing the foreigners back into the hills, from which they were too difficult to dislodge. They've been there ever since. Well - roughly like that anyway (I am sure someone will correct my history...)But why should modern Wales accept such a derogatory designation - in the "victor's" language? I accept - of course - that nothing could or should be done to remove the adjective "Welsh" (or the nasty English verb "to welsh"..) from the vocabulary of the English language. That would be absurd. Even though the state-name Burma has been replaced by Myanmar, the adjective "Burmese" continues in use. But why should my country suffer such a pejorative term as its official name? Labour should change the country's name from Wales to Cymru - a proud independent, positive designation of cultural heritage, without pejorative Kentish overtones...  I lay claim to this, as a
Labour initiative!
I will now try to gain acceptance for the idea, within the Labour Party...
What do you think? Drop me a line
|
|
|
|
Created by GMID Design & Communication COPYRIGHT NOTICE
|
New
