Suppose you are a parent, anxious about your child’s education. Would you join the Labour Party? And what would the Labour Party offer if you did? You would certainly, sensibly, support the Labour Party – most people who put education high on their own priority list do. If, by chance, you knew someone in the Labour Party they might just get you to deliver some leaflets. You might well get involved at election time. Perhaps you would even join. But where would you put your energy the rest of the time?
If you really want to change your own child’s education you are more likely to focus your best efforts on their school; joining the PTA, becoming a parent governor. And it’s more likely that, from that position, you will press the local education authority for more or better support for schools. How much help would you get to be effective from your local party? How often would you have the chance to discuss the detail of the standards agenda with like-minded people? How often would you be able to compare with other parents with similar concerns, to identify what works and what doesn’t? Would you come away from party meetings refreshed and with renewed confidence to bring about change? How much help would you get from the party’s website?
All too often the party offers little to those who want to be actively working for change in their community. We rarely develop people’s own skills as change makers. We rarely consciously support them in what they do outside the party itself. Indeed, in many places ‘activist’ is still defined by the number of Labour Party meetings attended, not change achieved.
Instead, the reality is pretty passive. Support this party because it’s better than the others (as indeed it is); help the party get elected and, in power, the party will deliver. Certainly, there is more chance for more members to be involved in constructive policy discussion – although it inevitably seems, and is, a long way from the local policy forum to government policy. But in most places there is precious little support for those who want to be involved in making change happen.
If, too often, we offer little support to the individual party member, local parties can also feel marginalised from the very changes the government they helped elect is bringing about. For example, the drive to reduce crime is taking place in every community. But how many local parties have made it part of their agenda to track success and failure; to meet with the police, local councillors, and voluntary organisations; to assess for themselves, what is working is and what is not? How many parties have tried to identify their own role, whether encouraging members to join Neighbourhood Watch, promoting anti-car crime measures among their own members or making sure older members are aware of help with security that might be available locally? The occasional report from the local councillors or the MP scarcely matches up to what could be done.
We have let this happen at a time when more and more of government policy requires well-informed change makers on the ground. Government initiative after initiative depends for success on the effective involvement of local people able to spot and make use of the opportunities created: the New Deal for Communities and regeneration initiatives; Sure Start; new opportunities for volunteering; health action zones; patients forums and the vastly increased power and influence of patients and carers in the NHS; and the devolution of more power to individual schools.
At a broader level we have ambitious programmes to raise standards in health and education, to reduce crime, and to improve the start in life for millions of children. But all need to be driven from local level as much as they need to be supported at national level. While each of these needs a strong input and leadership from local professionals, we have recognised that in every case real success depends on partnership with local people and local communities.
Where this partnership is missing, progress is slower. Yet, despite the importance of these Labour initiatives, the party at local level has little to offer those who get involved.
One of the ironies of the past four years is that rather too many party members felt they were expected to be uncritical and passive supporters of the government. In reality, we have needed their active involvement in making change happen, and in feeding back the reality of change at local level.
The challenge for the next few years is to promote a genuine, positive role that gives members a sense of ownership of the modernisation programme that our party is carrying through in government. We need to promote the idea of Labour Party members as change makers. People who have a vital role to play in making the government’s policies a success at local level; not just people whose job is to explain how well the government is doing.
A party of change makers would be far more satisfying for most of our current members. It would be far more attractive for many of those who support our vision but see little reason to join. It would be a party designed to achieve change at a local level, whether this was supporting individual members in their activities; whether campaigning for change as a party; or in helping to check on the progress of Labour’s reforms and modernisation. It would be a party that consciously developed the skills of its member as change makers and was able to monitor and measure the impact it has had at local level. And it would be a party that actively drew in those members with expertise and knowledge as change makers and gave them a central role in shaping party policy at local and national level.
Some of this may involve changes in party structures, but structural change is less important that the political and cultural change needed to imagine a very different and very much more influential party. There are many members across the country that share this frustration with current ways of working. It was refreshing to see how often these themes were reflected in the 21st Century Party consultations. But bringing about change will be difficult.
There have been several recent innovative experiments in party structure. These have included moving from GC delegate structures to all-member meetings; and shifting the focus of party structure from branches to subject based groups. Anecdotal reports suggest they have had mixed success. The reasons for the change and the extent to which they are understood and shared among the party members seem to be at least as important determinants of success as the particular change itself. In other words we should avoid reaching for simple structural solutions to what are essential political challenges.
Change will be difficult. The people most likely to share a new vision of local Labour activity may well be the same people who keep the existing organisation going. We have to find ways of changing the party without disrupting its essential existing activity. And we certainly won’t change very much simply by allowing, urging or instructing CLPs to do things differently. If the Labour Party is to become a party of change makers at local level we will need to look seriously about how the process of re-shaping the party is actually carried out. We will need to learn lessons from the way that change is delivered in private, public and professional voluntary organisations. Just because the Labour Party at local level is an overwhelmingly voluntary organisation does not mean that the key ingredients of leadership development, empowerment of individuals and groups, and the value of learning from others’ experience are not relevant. We will need to invest in training, in the opportunity for changing CLPs to meet together regularly and share experiences, and in developing the best ways of supporting individual change makers.
Despite the difficulties, the change will be worthwhile. It should produce a larger and more interesting party for members. It will hasten the implementation of Labour’s reforms at local level. Equally important, it should boost the further development of the policy forum process that has been one of the undoubted successes of recent years. Although many more members now take part in well-focused policy discussion, the influence of local party members on national policy can only grow if it is clear that party members are actively involved in working for change in their area of interest. Policy developed with grassroots experience will always be more robust than policy developed purely from received wisdom or discussion.