In the Greater London Labour Party we have recently been selecting prospective candidates for the local elections in May. As a branch chair, it has not been an easy task to ensure that our shortlisting and selection meetings were quorate. There is a huge swathe of apathy running through the party, with active members soon to become designated as an endangered species.
But more seriously, according to latest reports, national membership has plummeted from over 400,000 in 1997 to around 250,000 now. In terms of lost membership subscriptions, this is costing the party about £2.25 million per annum. In my own constituency of Hornsey and Wood Green, membership has fallen from well over 2,000 to under 1,350, and a similar percentage drop is reflected in my own branch.
In discussing this with members, the reasons given for this fall in membership appear at first to be wide-ranging. Some object to the government’s apparently uncritical support for America’s globalisation agenda; some object to the way in which private sector initiatives such as PFI/PPP are apparently undermining the public service ‘ethic’; some object to what they see as the virtual reintroduction of selection in schools; and some object to student loans which cause young adults to start their adult life deep in debt. But these are not the only disillusioned members. Many members who support some or most of these policies are also disillusioned.
What all of these members say they have in common is an inability to influence what their party and government decides to do next. It matters not a jot, for example, whether as an ordinary party member one enthusiastically supports or whole-heartedly opposes, say, the Private Finance Initiative. There is no way of influencing what happens next. Ordinary party members, whatever their ‘politics’, and unless they are simply willing to uncritically support government policy in their local party or council chamber, are largely impotent.
This, of course, often suits those who see their career prospects as served by unconditional support for government policy; but for an increasing number of members – including many who support most government policies – it is a major turn-off. This is certainly the case in Hornsey and Wood Green and, in my view, it explains why so many members are leaving the party. There is clearly a democratic deficit and it is the problem that needs to be addressed if this exodus is to be arrested.
In Hornsey and Wood Green constituency we have formed a network of members intent on addressing this problem. We have adopted the slogan ‘Reclaim the Party’ to underline our collective identity as members of the party who want to ‘reclaim’ it for ordinary members. Members of our network have widely divergent politics, ranging from ‘Old Labour’ socialists to ‘New Labour’ modernisers. What binds us together is not ‘politics’ or ‘ideology’ in the traditional sense, but a commitment to addressing the problems that we believe are causing members to leave the party. Our objectives are very straight-forward.
We want to achieve four things. First, we want to place the issues summarised above – and in particular the democratic deficit – at the centre of our CLP’s agenda. Second, we want to scrutinise carefully and publicly how our CLP manages the tension between the ‘top-down’ dictat and ‘bottom-up’ member influence. Third, if we are not satisfied with how this is being managed, we want to be able to challenge our CLP officers’ rights to speak and act for the membership. Finally, we want to publicise what we are doing so that disillusioned members feel that they are not alone and are therefore more likely to remain in the party.
Finally, I should add that Reclaim the Party has no desire to become a national organisation. We simply wish to ‘infect’ our colleagues in other CLPs with our enthusiasm so that they too will want to ‘Reclaim the Party’.