I understand why people want this and on the whole agree. Personally I would open up our selection of candidates to all voters with primaries and not worry too much about how many people attend GCs. And I would want more conversations with the public about policy and worry less about the bureaucracy of the National Policy Forum.
But what I am worried about is that there has also been some mutterings specifically about the role of the party staff and how it is their actions that have somehow decreased transparency and democracy. Again, I understand why a few members would feel this and have some sympathy. But it is only ‘some’ sympathy.
I remember when the Clause IV debates were taking place. That there were a few party staff involved in the defend Clause IV campaign. The leader wanted to change the party’s constitution and party staff were campaigning against his wishes. Now you could say that they shouldn’t have got involved and should have stayed independent. On the other hand you could say that they had every right to campaign for what they felt to be right as party members. I think both positions are naïve. The party elects a leader and the leader should expect the party machine to back them to the hilt.
Since the Clause IV debate the party staff have always been 100 per cent loyal to the leader. They have always acted in concert with the leader, the leader’s office or senior team. When they have acted and whatever they have done has been as an extension of the leader’s office. And quite right too!
This is not the problem. What would be a problem would be if the Labour leader was unable to assert his authority over the party. Of course it’s a balance and members are entitled to have their say. But the leader must also be allowed to lead and sometimes some in the party won’t want to go where he wants to lead it. At that moment he needs to know that he can rely on party staff to be four-square behind him. Because, let’s be really honest here, if Ed had started the policy reviews or Refounding Labour with absolutely no sense of an outcome then we really would have a problem. But getting what he wants won’t just ‘happen’. He will need help from many parts of the party and yes, that will include party staff.
So let’s not pretend that party staff have somehow gone rogue, and let’s not allow them to become a focus of attack knowing they are without a right of reply.
The alternative might be attractive in some sort of alternative universe where politics was all about noble causes and intellectual argument. The party staff could be an apolitical civil service who answer only to the NEC chair. The leader would engage in debate with members but whatever policy position, whatever party structure that the party voted for, would be fine by them.
But back in the real world where politics is a bit messier, a bit rougher, this would of course be a disaster. So it is a fine balance. And like all things finely balanced, sometimes the balance is wrong. But I would strongly urge caution before acting in haste.
Dear Peter Fine blances can tip either way. In the real world the majority of people like to think of themselves as principled, however they actually behave in practice. With regard to Labour Party staff, you included, they have long since weighed on the side of their own interests and not the wider Party interest. Remember your parting words to me as chair of Save the Labour Party when you stood in for Matt Carter? And I quote; “You (Peter Kenyon) are part of the problem!” All I was raising were concerns about falling membership. Peter Kenyon http://petergkenyon.typepad.com/peterkenyon/
Dear Peter Fine blances can tip either way. In the real world the majority of people like to think of themselves as principled, however they actually behave in practice. With regard to Labour Party staff, you included, they have long since weighed on the side of their own interests and not the wider Party interest. Remember your parting words to me as chair of Save the Labour Party when you stood in for Matt Carter? And I quote; “You (Peter Kenyon) are part of the problem!” All I was raising were concerns about falling membership. Peter Kenyon http://petergkenyon.typepad.com/peterkenyon/
Very sensible article. It is the art and skill of leadership to bring everyone around to meeting the vision. Clearly not everyone will accept this but those that want change will need to bring those who do not around. Blair seemed to have this skill in abundance. Question is whether Ed is able to do the same?
Peter, I am just glad the membership are being involved. I hope you’ll understand that much of the moaning and griping is not based upon (at least not from people not directly involved in the affairs of Labour HQ) personalities it is the serious redress concerning a lack of trust and faith in the processes employed by the Party. If people were abusing processes last month what is to ensure that they will not do so next month. I do not think we need primaries just clear open processes there is no reason to go over the top and inflate already rather to large egos. I think you need to do this Party modernisation in two stages. The first is get the basic priciples right on the processes within the Party iteself that must be with respect to the wider membership and the future development of the Party as a democratic Progressive Leader in the country. Ensure that no individual group can dominate the Party and begin to rebuild trust within the Party with full respect to the Unions and affilaite bodies. Re-building trust then is key stage 1. Once people believe that this reform or refounding is clearly in the interests of objectivity and open democracy we can begin the process on engaging people and believe me if they believe in it they will be contributing, especially the younger members who need something noble and clear to aspire to, to aim for. Remember democratic Social/Socialism is an unreachable goal its sole purpose is to justify and attempt to bring out the best in all of us and that is precisely what we have to attempt to encourage. Remember the Party can only reach out to people from all walks of life if its membership and candidates can identify with the diversity within society with the common goal of fairness not ruthlessness, it is not our Parties goal to be cynical and accept the worst in society its our goal to challenge it whereever and whenever we can. For that we need open minds and diverse views. Not an ever decreasing circle of nepotistic irrelevence. Good luck and if you guys pull this off you will have restored not only a great deal of faith but given many of us something to believe in again that is better and gtreater than ourselves and made stronger through our collective best interests through shared fairness.
Surely the role of the party staff is to support the party as a whole and to be true to its principles. If they are to be some kind of brigade of guards to defend the Leadership and themselves then they are indeed part of the problem and should be addressed as part of the Refounding Labour review.