Miliband’s party reforms differ from Clause IV
—In the October edition of Progress, the Progressive column set out the story of the new Clause IV campaign accurately: few remember that Tony Blair might have lost unless local parties had balloted their members. But there are differences as well as parallels with the current debate on party reform.
First, Clause IV was not, mainly, about ideology. In the 1990s most of us would have voted for the slaughter of the firstborn if it seemed necessary to elect a Labour government. That mix of trust in the leader and desperation after 18 years in the wilderness no longer exists.
Second, members do not want ‘a six-month battle for the party’s soul’ immediately before an election. They want to look outward, developing attractive and principled policies which they can sell on the doorstep.
Third, Clause IV was a simple symbolic statement. Ed Miliband’s proposals cover primaries and selections as well as union-party relations, with many complexities, unsuited to a straight yes-no vote.
Fourth, and critically, Clause IV was cost-neutral. But the impact of making levy-payers join Labour could be severe. If 10 per cent opt in – probably an optimistic estimate – the party’s core functions and the jobs of half the staff are at risk.
Len McCluskey says that, while affiliation fees would fall, Unite would continue donating to Labour from its political fund. Other general secretaries believe that if individual members reject the Labour link they have no mandate to do this. Union support would be more directly controlled by a few men at the top than under the existing, if imperfect, link to affiliated numbers. This is a regressive move, even if the alternative is bankruptcy.
So, while the Progressive rants about ‘fights to the death’, my priority is that the party should live so that future generations can shape it as they choose.
———————————————————
Ann Black is a member of the Labour party’s National Executive Committee
The clearest problem facing the Labour Party is how to combat its historical incapacity to defeat the Conservative Party. Ed’s focus on party reform is important and resonates well with grassroot members, however Refounding Labour is regarded as a failure in many CLPs, as a result of local machine politics in action and the manipulation of selection processes by a few individuals. The Labour Party must not be be allowed to be tarnished by the actions of a few. The Falkirk debacle which is solely centered on union involvement in alleged manipulation of a selection process may not be an isolated case and does not aid any attempt to renew or revitalise a clause IV moment. On the contrary. There is a weakness in the system that Refounding Labour has exacerbated.
History must not be allowed to dance to the tune of the sceptic.
Ed Miliband needs to learn the lessons from every general election from the 60’s to 1983 and its defeat in 1992. You are right to suggest that popular policies will improve the party image. However, the peoples perception through opinion polls during these periods appear to be present in 2013. Some of these problems that were present then are arguably familiar now: –
1. A reputation for economic incompetence : No money in the Treasury
2. A reputation for high taxation and public spending :- Pre 2010
3. The party image was tainted by its close association with trade unions and the Winter of Discontent :- Unite
4. Image of a party not united with an extreme left wing organisation.
5.A declining working class base that was forced back into traditional labour heartlands: – A reduction in southern labour support.
John Smith was a very popular leader and without doubt would have returned Labour to power. His view on a more consensual form of decision making and engagement with critics has been taken up by Ed Miliband. A good thing. Ed needs to have less of a reliance on spin doctors. It is worth noting that Peter Mandelson was as popular as piles at this time and was isolated from Smiths circle of friends. Trade union share of the vote at annual conference was reduced. CLP share rose. These sounds very familiar to a new Clause IV moment that Ed is attempting to rewrite and or resurrect with the parties relationship with the unions. OMOV in 1993 came to forge Smiths presence as Leader of the Party.
Blair in contrast stressed more discipline and control contrary to Smiths more relaxed view about debate and criticism in the party. Ed may have to release the chains and allow grassroots the flexibility to challenge inequality and local machine politics. This would be very popular. Blair’s renewal of spin doctors, sound bites and his belief that reducing trade union influence by the block vote in 1995 would benefit his control freakery leadership, defined his early years at the helm. The creation of Policy Forums which bypassed conference diminished the role of the conference and the NEC’s role continued with a party management role rather than dealing policy. Ed appears to be changing the latter although Refounding Labour has created management politics and vested interests at local level through Local Campaign Forums. (Local Campaign Forums( have not yet been officially endorsed by the NEC).The painting of gloss on incompetence by some CLPs officers does not hide wrongdoing. Ed /NEC needs to commission audits/ investigation into every CLP to test whether Refounding Labour is working as it should. He may be very shocked at what he finds. (Appendix 4 Labour Rules 2013)
Ed needs to learn from history to enable his Clause Four moment to be driven forward successfully and return Labour to number 10.
Ed reforms don’t really differ from Clause IV. The choice is simple John Smith, Tony Blair or something in between. I would prefer John Smith
Cllr Mark Houlbrook
Doncaster