| |
New
Living Diary
Index
New participatory
democracy
Taming the Corporations
My Welsh socialism
My New
Socialist Settlement
Globalise the left!
Bevan re-visited
|
|
|
item0072B 1022, 1023
1022
21 June 2004
Organising the
Labour Party
Notes of RWE speech to Labour Party members/Fabians at
Cardiff
Saturday 19
June 2004, Annual Garden Party
“We have all come through a difficult time, in the
last month, through the period of the Local and European elections. The
Iraq timetable has coincided with the European Constitution timetable and
the electoral timetable, to place the Party under stress. Those of us who
have fought as candidates in the local elections have been exposed directly
to the concerns of both Labour and floating voters, highlighting the reasons
for that stress, which are many and diverse. I was one of the unsuccessful
Labour candidates in Swansea, where the Party lost 13 seats and ceded
control of the Council to a motley coalition of Conservatives, LibDems and
Independents; most of you will have had closer experience of our the Party’s
losses in Cardiff.
“And I have no doubt that the Labour Party can come through this choppy
time. I confess that the exaggerated optimism of the Party’s E-mail
messages goes too far for me – but I remain an optimist, and Labour should
certainly win the 2005 General Election.
“But that should not prevent our confronting and discussing what is
happening. For beyond
Iraq, beyond Brussels,
and beyond City Hall, there is a broader, brooding issue which demands our
attention. It is the suggestion, formulated clearly by Professor Anthony
King during the election-night TV broadcasts, that the electorate
seemed to be turning against professional ruling groups – moving against the
political salariat.
Confronting the seemingly inconsistent patterns of
electoral response, that was his analysis.
-
I
think there is real evidence of such phenomenon locally,
regionally and
nationally, both in the UK and throughout Europe.
“Within the EU, ruling Governments (whether Right or Left)
had a torrid time: their electorates were registering a protest at “Government”,
regardless of colour. That certainly happened in
Swansea
and Cardiff, where the swing against our Labour Cabinets was particularly
strong; equally, we regained control of the two
Plaid Cymru Councils in the
Valleys. The protest was evident on the doorstep: a deep scepticism about
“the politicians”, particularly in view of their salaries and other
remuneration, the imputation that they were essentially self-seeking
careerists, simply using the system for their personal advance.
“I think the
political salariat is indeed
becoming more and more unpopular, more remote and unconvincing – partly because
of its very efficiency, and ruthlessness. At the same time, the
process of voting, of
deriving legitimacy from popular election, seems to be waning in force –
however widely lip-service may be paid to “democratic government”.
Tellingly, UKIP and the Greens seemed to benefit from the obvious
informality, almost amateurism, of their campaigns – they come over as “real
people”, motivated by a cause and not by careerism. This is Eddie-the-Eagle
politics: voters are so fed up with watching the professionals that there is
real relief in finding some genuine amateurs. And coming nearer to home, I
have no doubt that some of the excitement generated in Labour circles by the
Welsh Assembly was attributable to the fact that new, enthusiastic political
recruits entered the representative fray, to supplement the tired array of
salaried Westminster Parliamentarians.
 If that is right
(though some may disagree with
my analysis), what is that doing to our own Party? This is
certainly not complain about the payment of parliamentarians: that was our
idea, and one of the great victories of the Labour parliamentary group, as early as 1911.
Yet I suggest we are now suffering from an alienation between our
salaried representatives and the Party rank-and-file. Over the last ten
years, managerialism has bitten deep into the Party, and into the motivation
of its rank-and-file. In the wording of our Constitution, there is
growing disaffection between the salaried parliamentarians and the Party “in the
country”. In February 1918, it was announced in Clause 1 of the
Constitution that –
-
“This organisation shall be known as “The Labour Party”. Its purpose is
to organise and maintain, in Parliament and in the country, a political
Labour Party”
Those words have survived the many constitutional changes
that we have seen.
“I suggest that we must now re-visit relations, the
balance of power, between our Parliamentarians (now extended by the
representative assemblies of
Wales, Scotland and London) – and
“the Party in the country”.
Because it is clear that that relationship is in trouble. Party
membership is weak and weakening, partly I suggest for this reason. CLPs
and Party members are demoralised,
unsure of their role in the new professionalized Party. Do local Parties
have
any continuing function, with postal voting, mass distribution
leaflets, radio and TV campaigning? What are local members, and local
Parties, for?
Conference has been reduced to a circus, albeit an enjoyable one with
hundreds of sideshows. The rank-and-file have been deprived of their only
real political outlet, namely the old-style Conference, untidy and unruly as
it sometimes was. And for my part, I deeply regret the change of rules
which allows Party officials to become elected representatives, by way of a
seamless promotion process: the professionals have removed that barrier to
their advance.
“Let me make it clear: we do not suggest “going back”, in
any sense of the term. The question is how to move forward, in the new
circumstances in which we find ourselves. Salaried career politics are now the norm, and will remain so. Our
sons and daughters are simply deciding whether to become doctors or lawyers
or accountants or politicians – and if they choose the latter, they set
about at an early age learning the tricks-of-the-trade, of getting and keeping elected
position, without any break in continuity. They have adapted the rules
of the Labour Party so that it is now very difficult indeed for a sitting MP
to be “deselected”, with the result that the salaried position of many
salaried representatives is "settled" for life.
 What can, then, be done?
We can attempt to change the
balance of power between ourselves and our political salariat. As the
professionals hold all the key levers of power at the moment, through the
NEC and their management of the Conference, that will not be easy to
negotiate; some of you may consider it impossible. But I suggest we offer,
to the Parliamentarians, a deal – when I say Parliamentarian, I would extend
that to the Welsh and London Assemblies, and the Scottish Parliament.
We should say, and concede, to them -
-
You would get to choose the Party Leader yourselves, as you always used to
do,
and the Trade Unions and CLPs would withdraw from that process;
-
You would determine Government/Opposition policy, without any formal claim
from the Party to constrain your judgment - are the professional
"governors" and we accept that the business of government should be your
responsibility, as our representatives;
In return, as part of an overall constitutional settlement
covering a range of Party constitutional amendments –
-
You would be asked to withdraw from any active officer or representative
role within the Party, upon becoming a salaried Parliamentarian; this
would not apply to local Councillors, not even Cabinet members, who would
be an important component of the "
Party
in the country"; you would
concede the Party to be run by its ordinary members, with the support of
professional Party officers;
You would be required to accept automatic, mandatory re-selection at every
election for your position; there would be no “sitting member privileges”
or presumptions,
and the full membership of each Constituency (not just the GMC) would be required to give a hearing to competing
candidates at every Election.
“The effect of this would be to allow the professional
revolution to run its full course, accepting that legislatures are now
effectively to province of salaried politicians, and allowing them to
determine Party leadership and policies, while having regard to the views of
the supporting Party. It would also give each Constituency Labour Party and
its Members a vital role in the selection, at regular intervals, of Party
Candidates. There would be no centralised Candidates List, unless the
newly-constituted Party decided for its own reasons to arrange one.
And I would argue for the reintroduction of the bar on parliamentary careers
for Party officials: they would have to choose between serving the Party in
the country, or becoming elected political representatives.
 “These changes would transfer the Party Conference to the
“Party in the Country”. No salaried politicians would serve on the NEC, or
on the Conference Arrangements Committee. No doubt the Parliamentary Labour
Parties would develop their own structures and support systems, just as
Labour has now appointed a Cabinet-level “Party Chairman”, to add to the
Chairman appointed by the NEC. Conference would be free to debate and
decide upon any political Motion it thought fit, though without making any
claim thereby to form Party policy. This would greatly increase the value
of political debate, and Parliamentarians would have to keep a close eye on
emerging opinion within the Party, without being formally bound by any
Resolutions. The whole relationship between the two arms of the Party would
be looser, more easy-going and less confrontational. And the rank-and-file
would have their sole, but nevertheless very important lever-of-power, that
of mandatory re-selection.
Peter Fitzgerald (Chairman, Valleys Fabian Society) and I, lawyers both (and calling
ourselves Labour Links) have worked out all the constitutional
amendments that would be needed to achieve that result. They are not
extensive, and we seek your support for them. You will find them at my
website.
If you are a Labour Member, what do you think? Drop me a line
<
Back to Home Page
1023
21
June
2004
Where I am going
There is no way back
 Having
declared my hand, I intend to keep track, with you, of progress with my
" New" New Labour manifesto - at least my principal zones of interest and
concern.
The problem, as I see
it, is that New Labour has not been radical enough, and has now run out of steam
- politically and intellectually.
This
will be my fivefold focus
-
Defining
a new, lean Welfare State, suited to a society of growing personal
wealth, individualist rather than collectivist in character, and
minimising the incidence of means-testing...
I find that, in responding to the
doorstep taunts of Swansea undergraduates, I have also sketched out my
model of the future, leaner welfare state: read
Student Manifesto.
Developing new institutional forms for
Europe, to address the present discontents, and countering
British isolationism;
"Progressive Dissociation" - a new
way of managing diversity, within the EU - seemingly a "Tory" formula, but
I propose it as a non-party device to accommodate a wider range of institutional
flexibility, without undermining the essential unity of the
federal
European Union.
Engaging 1,000,000 citizens in the participative governance of our
society, fostering further devolution of power and generating new sources
of legitimacy for government;
I believe that the waning
legitimacy of "representative democracy" is waning, and that it must
be replaced by new forms of participatory democracy.
Solving current pressing problems of citizenship and immigration,
designated as "migration management";
This calls for a new wave of sensitive international settlements,
both within the EU and much more widely - I have addressed all the
practical issues, in my DOMUS proposals..
Rebalancing power, as between natural and artificial persons, securing
international company reform, and regulating the abuse of corporate power
throughout the world.
This is the agenda of
the Company Reform Coalition, furthered by forthcoming
article in
The Chartist.
I plan to use my
personal resources more selectively in future, to focus on these five policy
sectors. What
about “Human Rights”? For
me, human rights are not a specific policy-end in themselves, but they
constitute the medium within which all issues fall to be addressed and
resolved.
Where are you going? Will you
share your thoughts with us?
<
Back to Home Page
|
|