If you think the conference arrangements committee of the Labour party is unimportant then you do not understand the Labour party. It may sound like a benign gathering of bureaucrats who choose the colour of the backdrop or the warm-up music, but in reality it is seven men and women who determine what annual conference discusses, and therefore what may become party policy.
In this period of opposition, which shows no sign of being short, the CAC has the power to decide whether a resolution submitted under the ‘contemporary resolutions’ rules is really contemporary. For example, a couple of years ago the rail union Aslef submitted a contemporary resolution calling for rail nationalisation. In theory anything relating to railways is contemporary, because they exist in the present, and so the Aslef resolution was in order. Exercising the judgement of Solomon, or else the bidding of the leader’s office (depending on your viewpoint) the CAC ruled it out of order, and so conference did not discuss nationalisation of the railways.
Five of the members are chosen by the trade unions, through a process so transparent and open that there is no point going into it here. But two members are elected by members. Hitherto, the delegates to conference have elected two ‘constituency reps’, and the mainstream candidates have been elected. Previous incumbents include Stephen Twigg, Seema Malhotra and Yvette Cooper. But this year, thanks to the adoption of a new rule proposed first by the Bennite Campaign for Labour Party Democracy, the two places are elected by an OMOV ballot. The ballot papers have already been issued.
The Bennites have always understood the need to control seemingly innocuous committees. By controlling the CAC, a small faction may exercise huge control over what appears on the conference agenda. If you control the agenda, you can control conference. This is the classic Bennite formula, as described in Andrew Marr’s A History of Modern Britain:
this was the ‘if only’ faction. If only the trade unions could be won by the left, then true socialist policies could be imposed on the party. If only the gang at the top could be kicked out. If only we could force Labour MPs to do what their constituency parties told them. If only we could capture the national executive committee, or the conference arrangements committee, or some committee or other. If only we could get in, we could nationalise the top 200 companies then everything would change forever.
The hope of the hard left is that they can get their candidates Katy Clark (the defeated member of parliament) and the godfather of Bennism Jon Lansman elected to both CAC posts. Lansman provides the unbroken thread between the Benn for Deputy campaign of 1980, and the Corbyn for Leader campaign 35 years later, via a leaflet tunnel at every party conference and National Policy Forum in between. To control the party, they know winning the leadership is only the first step. Next comes control of the key committees, and then control over party policy, so the full shopping list can be adopted.
Suddenly the election of the mainstream candidates, who can serve the broader party interest in a non-factional way, seems a rather important task.
Two excellent candidates stand out. Michael Cashman has been a campaigner for social justice and equality since the dark days of Thatcher. Gloria De Piero has been a brilliant MP, increasing Labour’s majority in her own constituency. Both will bring a sense of justice and fairness to the deliberations of the CAC, serving the membership as a whole, rather than one gang or another. In these turbulent times, a steady hand on the tiller is needed more than ever, and that is what Gloria and Michael will provide.
———————————
Paul Richards is author of Labour’s Revival: The Modernisers’ Manifesto. He tweets @LabourPaul
———————————
Why do Progress think that Katy Clark is of the “hard left”? It can’t be because she proudly boasts of being to a socialist and is a member of the Socialist Campaign Group because the same criteria applies to John Cryer, the current Chair of the PLP, elected unopposed in February 2015.
The slur cannot be because she was a signatory of the open letter to Ed Milliband, in January 2015 because so was John Cryer, who has a similar record for being an occasional rebel. Some of the policies she advocates have now been adopted by Andy Burnham! The lack of logical consistency or rational argument, from the increasingly desperate writers at Progress, as evidenced by their March 9th Article (excerpt below), is perhaps explained by the fact that Katy, unlike John, does not happen to have Rachel Reeves as a sister in law?
“This time there was not even an opponent. What changed? As a backbenchers’ representative on the parliamentary committee Cryer is an assiduous worker, which meant last year he became vice-chair of the PLP, and many felt he was due reward for doing an unglamorous job well.
As a result it was clear that Cryer was the favourite and, while strongly on the left, he is no striker of pointless radical poses, so mutual goodwill was preferred to distracting division. The job of PLP chair will be crucial after the election, whether raising concerns with Labour ministers over difficult policies, discussing what flavour of coalition or minority government would be acceptable, or, even, speaking for the party if we are in opposition. Come what may, in May, Cryer will be a man in great demand.”
So to be “the favourite” and “strongly on the left” was not seen as a problem by Progress, back in February 2015 but is now viewed with horror, in regard to the leadership election and in the determination of party policy.
So, to reiterate. ALL PROGRESS SUPPORTERS SHOULD VOTE LANSMAN AND CLARK FOR THE CAC
I don’t know enough about John Lansman but found this analysis interesting. It is critical of both Lansman and the faction that were to become New Labour; particularly Charles Clarke, Patricia Hewitt and Peter Mandelson,who, perhaps inadvertently, made Neil Kinnock less electable but paved the way for Tony Blair.
http://www.totalpolitics.com/print/4358/lessons-from-labours-wilderness-years.thtml
Here are two damning indictments, of those who now attempting to manipulate the election, in order to preserve their waning influence within the Party:
Mandelson wrote privately to Roy Hattersley that Kinnock’s “values and rhetoric are still tied strongly to the ‘have-nots’. He cares too much. He’s too much of a socialist and hates the idea of being seen as anything different.”
The second lesson follows from the first. If Labour remembers its history, it will remember why it’s there, which is to support the underdog. The Bennites forgot that in their frantic political manoeuvring and their ideological rigidity, which became an end in itself. In today’s Labour Party, the Blairites show the same ideological intolerance as the Bennites, and they, too, have forgotten what Labour is there for. The rich and powerful already had their political party. Now they have two.
This article really makes me laugh because I honestly didnt have a clue who to vote for so figured Progress might be able to point me in the right direction. Obviousy, on the basis that if Progress dont like you you must be doing something right – Jon Lansmann.. tick, Katy Clark… Tick!