On Tuesday 20^th September, a mere five days before 2011 conference kicks off, the NEC finally published its set of recommendations in response to the Refounding Labour process. While it contains many welcome proposals (see the brief summary below) there has been no time left for members to discuss their views on these changes.

Crucially, two critical issues seem yet to be decided. As reported by constituency NEC member Joanna Baxter on Labour List, the NEC will discuss further the questions of whether registered supporters will be given formal voting rights in the party (and reports suggest they will propose a role in elections for leader and deptuy leader) and, secondly, the allocation of votes at annual conference between affiliate and constituency sections. Astonishingly, this discussion will take place on Saturday evening, just one day before conference will be asked to vote on the whole package on a take it or leave it basis.

The only way out of this wholly undemocratic mess is to support the call by Bridgend CLP for the vote on Refounding Labour to be postponed to a special conference. Given the range of changes proposed, party members need to be given time to consider the new rules, and a means to debate and amend them. The propsect of non-members being given a formal voting role crosses a line for many in the party, and the domination of conference by three big unions remains a crucial  issue to be addressed. All the commitments to openness, democracy and for a real role for members will count for little if the party is, as looks likely, railroaded into agreeing changes without due deliberation and debate.

As things stand, the agreed NEC document ‘Refounding Labour to win’, and the accompanying amended Rule Book, omit major changes on the two most controversial issues.

First, it endorses maintaining the current division of conference votes – 50 per cent to Trade Unions and affiliated organisations (albeit henceforth to include Young Labour and the Association of Labour Councillors), and 50 per cent to CLPs. Secondly, it  provides for no major change to the rules for electing the leader and deputy leader other than to curb the current practice of double voting.

Indeed, in the summary and in an NEC appendix to the Rules, the party reaffirms the rights of full members over registered supporters, stating that Labour Supporters would ‘enjoy informal involvement and participation’ only. It would be entirely unacceptable for the NEC to make major changes on these two issues on the eve of conference.

Refounding Labour to Win also recommends:

• a change to clause 1 of the Party’s constitution, so that in addition to the aim of ‘maintaining the party in parliament and in the country’ the party will also seek to ‘bring together members and supporters who share its values to develop policies, make communities stronger through collective action and support, and promote the election of Labour representatives at all levels of the democratic process.’

• changes to the rules setting out the rights and duties of the leader and deputy leader.

• a series of changes to how CLPs are run including greater freedom to choose their own party structures and officers, and greater space for political debate in party meetings.

• setting up a registered supporters scheme whereby local parties recruit supporters, although national online registration would also be possible. As noted, currently there is no proposal for registered supporters to have any formal role in the party elections, voting or selection procedures (although presumably this is subject to the NEC rethink on Saturday?). According to Joanna Baxter’s report, these lists would be locally managed, although how that will square with any role they may have in leadership elections, or with a national online recruitment process, is unclear. Local parties would be expected to hold at least one consultation meeting with supporters and potentially have much greater informal involvement than that.

• a series of as yet fairly vague commitments to improve the transparency and accountability of the National Policy Forum processes, including an online ‘audit trail of proposals’ to track what happens to submissions to the NPF. Refounding Labour to Win clearly acknowledges the criticisms of the NPF without having a very clear idea of how it might change. Although it reaffirms the sovereign role of conference, the document is silent on changes to how NPF proposals might be debated or voted on.

• a new funding regime for local parties, establishing what Joanna Baxter termed ‘a minimum wage for CLPs’ seeking to support poorer/weaker CLPs and support CLPs’ ability to send delegates to conference.

• candidate contracts to be signed by all local council and parliamentary candidates specifying their duties.

• Local Government Committees and County Parties to be replaced with Local Campaign Forums while there’d be enhanced rights (including voting rights) for the Association of Labour Councillors.

• a beefed up role for Young Labour, including an annual conference and enhanced rights to vote, nominate and submit motions to conference.

• new membership rates.

• training and support for local organisers, campaigners and prospective candidates in selection contests

• commitments to enhance diversity.

See the full text of Bridgend’s proposal go to www.labourdemocraticnetwork.org

Read the ILP’s submission to Refounding Labour.

It seems that a final Refounding Labour document will go to the party’s Organisation Committee of the NEC on 15 September and then to the NEC itself five days later. If it is accepted the proposals it contains will then be presented to Labour Party conference in Liverpool on Sunday (26 September) on a ‘take it or leave it’ basis.

This means there will be little chance for constituency parties to consider their position and no opportunity to make amendments at the conference. Such high-handedness may backfire if the party feels the leadership’s management style is too reminiscent of its immediate predecessors.

As an alternative Bridgend CLP are circulating a motion calling for a Special One Day Conference to be held in London in November after members have seen the proposed rule changes and responded to them.

Bridgend have asked for extra time to ‘facilitate full engagement and participation’ and ‘make accessible all the Refounding Labour submissions’. While appreciating some of the ‘constructive proposals’, the motion criticises ‘the lack of detail in the Summary Report’.

See the full text of Bridgend’s proposal go to www.labourdemocraticnetwork.org

Read the ILP’s submission to Refounding Labour.

The renewal of the Labour Party, encompassing changes in its structures and practices, is long overdue and we welcome the Refounding Labour initiative. There is much to commend in the Refounding document and we applaud both its recognition of the problems and its openness to new ways forward.

The campaign for a successful, participatory and democratic Labour Party has been at the heart of the ILP’s politics for over 30 years (see below). In debates about party democracy over the last 30 years, we consider we have taken an honourable and principled approach which sometimes brought us into conflict with those seeking democratic reform for partisan advantage. Our responses to Refounding Labour are guided by this record and a number of key aims:

• for a vibrant and participatory party
• for a party that is, in Ed Miliband’s words, ‘rooted in communities, dynamic and campaigning that can win the argument for a fairer, more equal and more democratic Britain’
• for a party which makes membership meaningful, beyond being electoral foot soldiers
• for a democratic party in which members have an influential role and there is a direct and transparent connection between members’ views and policy.

1. An outward looking party

Local parties should be free to organise their activities in new ways, and the Party nationally ought to encourage and support such innovation as much as it can. An urgently-needed part of this new way of working is for political education among party members and those in the wider community who share some or all of our vision. We agree that Labour’s success is dependent on our members being active and engaged in their local communities. To that extent, and in building on the successful examples of vibrant local party campaigns, we agree with many of the suggestions in Refounding Labour which point towards innovation in the way that local parties organise themselves and engage with their local communities. Local parties do have to maintain certain democratic procedures for formally determining positions on policy and for conducting (re)selection processes. Aside from those areas, formal business can be kept to a minimum. However, Labour’s project of ‘a fairer, more equal and more democratic Britain’ has to be campaigned for. An informed and engaged membership at grass roots level is vital not only to win elections but also to win hearts and minds and to counter the dominance of a right-wing media. Local parties are not, therefore, simply in the business of reflecting views of local communities, but also of campaigning for change. Here, keeping the formal part of local party work to a minimum would allow constituencies and branches to have more open, engaging and educative meetings.

2. A  voice for members

Both Refounding Labour, and the current leadership have openly acknowledged that party members have been neglected and sidelined within the party for many years. As Ed Miliband said, the previous leadership ‘spent too much time treating the membership as a threat to sensible policy and direction’. It is very welcome that Refounding Labour acknowledges the need to make members feel involved and listened to. The democratic deficit in the party is profound and no-one reading Refounding Labour can be left with any view other than that internal party processes and rules are in urgent need of a democratic overhaul. Partly because of the nature of the Party and its history, this is a complex and difficult area and we offer a series of guiding principles only:

• We would welcome the creation of registered party supporters but there should be no formal role for non-party members in any of the voting processes within the party, including election of leader and deputy leader, voting on party policy and selection and reselection of parliamentary and local government candidates. Enhancing the voice of party members is incompatible with allowing non-members any formal role. Participation by registered supporters in local party discussions and party conference in an informal role is to be very much welcomed and registered supporters could be given special mailings, invites to social and other events. Indeed, broadening such informal consultations would allow policy debates to be informed by dialogue with a wider audience.

• Any changes to how party policy is determined ought to fulfil this basic criterion: that there should be a much more direct, democratic and transparent connection between the views of individual party members, their constituencies and official party policy.  For this to be realised, the processes by which party policy is determined have to be completely overhauled. Even if something akin to the National Policy Forum is retained, at least in the short to medium term, its operation and procedures must be made more simple and transparent and it must constitute a more direct link between constituencies and party conference. As part of this, policies emanating from the NPF should be properly debated and voted on at party conference and there should be a mechanism whereby amendments can be tabled and minority reports, where appropriate, are also debated and voted on. For this direct, democratic connection between individual, local and national levels to be realised, serious work and resources will have to be allocated to ensuring there are adequate procedures for ‘reporting up from’ and ‘reporting back to’ the local level. Examples of such democratic practices, such as in the consumer co-operative movement, could guide this.

• Annual conference should be reaffirmed as the supreme body of the Party but its processes and voting procedures need a democratic overhaul. The key democratic deficit here is that trade union votes are now concentrated and dominant as never before. As Refounding Labour makes clear, barely a handful of large unions control around 50 per cent of votes at conference. A revitalised role for party members is not possible if they are so marginal to decisions at conference. A phased process should be introduced whereby the Union share of votes is gradually reduced if and when party membership increases. By creating a conference more relevant to members, playing a real role in the democratic life of the party, may help to address the growing neglect of conference by constituencies that Refounding Labour has identified. In addition, initiatives to increase participation by registered supporters in discussions, and debate around conference, should be encouraged and will help to shift the emphasis of conference attendance away from corporate lobbyists and towards communities and campaigns and movements for change. An annual party ‘festival’ would add to the variety of voices and debates heard by the party and would be very welcome.

3. Renewing the party

The Party should learn lessons, where appropriate, from  the use of social and new media for building networks and creating new forums for debate and dialogue as well as fundraising and campaigning. Successful examples deployed by campaign groups like 38 Degrees, Compass, Progress and Obama’s presidential election can help to guide this practice. Many other issues around renewing the party have been covered in the initiatives necessary to build an ‘outward looking party’. The key to both will be a revitalisation of membership and a freedom to innovate and learn from one another at constituency level. Such renewal is necessary not only for electoral purposes; an active party is also important to avoid the party leadership, particularly when in office, becoming cut-off from the wider society.

4. Winning back power

To protect and reaffirm the role of selection and reselection procedures as a democratic bedrock of the party also means tempering the centralised, top-down interventions by the national party in local selection procedures. As already argued, there should be no role for non-party members in the formal business of selecting electoral candidates. The undemocratic and counter-productive imposition of candidates in parliamentary, mayoral and devolved assembly elections has been a disaster for party democracy and the party’s public image.

About the ILP and Labour Party democracy

The ILP has a long history of campaigning for democratic change within the Labour Party. We were at the forefront of the early campaigns for internal reform in the late 1970s, when the left agued for (and eventually won, in 1979) the right of constituency Labour Parties to deselect sitting MPs. This right, now trumpeted as a pillar of party accountability in the Refounding Labour document, was won in the teeth of opposition from many MPs and the right wing of the party.

The ILP was also at the forefront of the campaign to broaden the electorate for leader and deputy leader beyond MPs to include party members and trade unions. A new system was eventually agreed in 1981 creating the ‘electoral college’ which still exists in modified form today, whereby the trade unions had 40% of the votes, MPs 30% and constituencies 30%  (the proportions are now, in line with the ILP’s view at the time, a third for each). In this process serious differences opened up between the ILP and much of the rest of the left. In arguments over the electoral college, the ILP saw that the left had to ‘compromise or be damned’ and stood up for a compromise position, not unlike that eventually agreed. Other groups on the left chose to be damned as undemocratic and stuck out hopelessly and erroneously for a much more trade union-dominated system.

More importantly, the ILP argued on the grounds of basic democratic principle, that the constituency element of the electoral college should be based on one member one vote (OMOV). Others on the left argued for the retention of a delegatory system which placed constituency votes in the hands of activists and officials, a system which we argued, correctly as it tuned out, invited a manipulative and undemocratic political practice. The ILP’s stance developed further and we came to a position which argued that to create a participatory democratic system, OMOV should include a requirement for members to attend a minimum number of party meetings.

We sustained the campaign for this system through the 1980s, though much of the force had gone out of the party democracy movement by the late 1980s. However, in 1988 OMOV was introduced for the constituency section of leader and deputy leader elections and in 1993, under John Smith’s leadership, the trade union block vote was removed from elections to select parliamentary candidates and replaced with OMOV (without any attendance requirement). The ILP maintained its campaigns for more democratic change, arguing in the pamphlet Taking the Party to the Cleaners that annual conference was overly dominated by trade union block votes, often operating in cahoots with party leadership.

With the advent of Tony Blair’s leadership, the process of democratic reform was put into reverse and the new Labour leadership set its face against the party membership. Despite his previous championing of OMOV, Blair oversaw cumbersome and leadership-dominated processes for selection of mayoral, MEP and devolved assembly candidates with disastrous results. Blair also sidelined conference from any significant role and created the National Policy Forum as a mechanism for taking policy debate out of public view. When the NPF and the Party into Power initiatives were introduced, the ILP argued that the processes needed to be made simpler, more direct, with more room for minority views to be heard and with conference having a key role in debating and deciding on options – all ideas that have returned to the forefront of thinking about reform to the party’s policy process.

Speaking at a meeting in the House of Commons organised by Compass on Tuesday (14 June), Hain said that Labour needs to reach out beyond its dwindling membership to involve supporters and communities in its activities.

However, this must be done “in a way that does not compromise the rights of members to select candidates and leaders, to affect policy, or to send delegates”, he said.

“These are rights of membership and should remain so,” he added. “If you’re a member you have certain rights which come with that and they shouldn’t be compromised.

“We should try to have the kind of relationship with supporters where we are constantly trying to get them signed up as members, maybe with an introductory rate.”

Refounding Labour is about “trying to construct an entirely new party for an entirely new era”, according to Hain, who has been consulting members and local parties around the country and via the Refounding Labour website.

He described party organisation under new Labour as over-centralised and characterised by “a control freakery which squeezed the life out of the party”. Politics has changed, he said, but Labour’s current structures were designed for a pre-internet era which has long-since passed.

Like all parties, Labour has been losing members for years, but it’s also suffered “a savage decline” in affiliated trade union membership which means it’s lost touch with people’s working lives.

“We realise there is a lot of disillusion around and we have to breathe life back into the party,” he said. “Ed Miliband is determined to do that.

“If we don’t change we won’t win the next election. It is absolutely vital to the party’s prospects.”

Hain outlined the main tasks of Refounding Labour as:

• to energise the party at local level
• to make sure members feel valued, talked to, listened to, and have a real say in decisions
• to breathe life into the policy process
• to change the party’s practice and how it is structured.

He pointed to local parties which had been successful in recent elections, often against the odds – such as, Edgbaston, Barking and Oxford East – claiming they had done so by breaking out of party structures and involving local supporters and communities in activities and campaigns.

He added that the party should learn more from wider interest groups and civil society organisations such as students, Greenpeace, Mumsnet, and non-affiliated trade unions, and seek to establish Labour-supporting networks within those organisations.

“Labour has to be embedded in civil society, and be at the centre of it, so we are seen as the natural home for their supporters,” he said.

A number of speakers from the audience made the point that energising local parties and attracting new members cannot be divorced from the politics and policies of the national party.

“The problem is we don’t know what the Labour Party stands for,” said one.

“It’s exciting people about ideas and policies that will get them into the Labour Party,” added another.

“Labour needs to start making and winning the arguments again; it has to shift public opinion and fight on its convictions rather than following the media and opinion polls,” said a third.

There was general support for the idea of supporters’ networks (“The party does need to reach beyond members”), yet a sense of relief that the “unique privileges” of membership should be protected.

One suggested the Refounding Labour process had been conducted too quickly and asked that local parties have a chance to amend the national executive committee’s proposals to Labour conference this September.

Hain said he would consider not presenting the proposed reforms as ‘all-or-nothing’. He also responded positively to a member who suggested the culture of the party is more important than the process.

“We want to free up constituencies rather than suffocating them in their own procedures,” said Hain.

“If we do make these sort of changes, it will be a seismic shift in the party, therefore we have to take the party with us and make members enthusiastic about the changes we introduce.

“We can’t do this from the top. We cannot change this movement unless you all take ownership of it.”

—-

The deadline for submissions to Refounding Labour is 24 June.

The ILP’s submission will be posted here soon.

The Refounding Labour website and details of how to submit are here.

Read the Dronfield Blather discussion group’s submission here.

The future of the Labour Party, and in particular its internal organisation and operation, was a recurrent theme in the campaign for party leadership. All candidates argued that the party needs reinvigorating and revitalising, and all candidates made some commitment to renewing party democracy.

For his part, Ed Miliband criticised past new Labour practice. ‘The leadership spent too much time treating the membership as a threat to sensible policy and direction,’ he said, arguing instead for ‘a party rooted in communities, dynamic and campaigning, that can win the argument for a fairer, more equal and more democratic Britain’. More specifically he called for ‘a living, breathing movement with more to say for party members in policy making; greater focus on local campaigning; and an elected party chair.’

To meet these commitments, and as part of the wider post-mortem on the election defeat, Peter Hain was given the task of leading a consultation on the future of the party. This was launched at the end of March when the Refounding Labour document and associated web site was published. Members and local parties have been invited to discuss the document in May and June and a make contributions and responses by 24 June. Over the summer the National Executive Committee (NEC) will consider recommendations for reform and make proposals for constitutional changes to party conference in September.

Spin

The launch of Refounding Labour was heavily spun around the idea of allowing non-party members to have a say in the system for choosing party leaders. Although an important issue, the document is much less forthright on this issue than the press releases suggested. In fact, Refounding Labour is a very broad document, raising many – possibly too many – possibilities and questions, and in itself actually contains no firm proposals for change.

Depending how cynical you are, this indicates either that the leadership is genuinely open about future change; that it does not know what it wants; or that it knows fine well what it’s going to propose and the open consultation process merely allows it to claim its preferred reforms have some backing from party members. Elements of all three explanations may, in fact, be true.

Overview

Refounding Labour is a very broad document and it is only possible here to highlight some important points.

The document begins by placing the process in the bleak context of Labour’s election defeat. In 2010 Labour secured one of the lowest shares of the vote in the party’s modern history – 29.7 per cent – a performance only masked by the vagaries of first past the post. The party received four million fewer votes than in 1997. It is also saddled with a colossal debt and faces an ongoing financial crisis.

The document notes that these problems sit in the wider context of a historic decline in party membership across western Europe. In Labour’s case, despite 50,000 new members since the election, membership is under half its 1997 level.

In addition, members are less active, local parties and structures have atrophied, and there is a general sense of disconnect between members and policy. This has undermined attendance at local meetings and national conference. Fewer than two-thirds of constituency parties, the document notes, bother to attend party conference.

In terms of Labour’s affiliated membership, Refounding Labour notes the wider decline in union membership. This, it notes in a barbed comment, has not been reversed despite the efforts of the Labour government to improve union recognition rights in the workplace. Overall, trade union affiliate membership of the party declined from 6.5 million in 1979 to 2.7 million in 2010. For Labour, this leaves fewer trade unionists, concentrated in many fewer unions, still exercising enormous influence within the party (more than 50 per cent of votes at conference).

Against this gloomy picture, the document does note some positive points, including the well-known successes of the 2010 campaign in places like Edgbaston, where active campaigning in target marginals helped shore-up Labour’s tally of seats, and the success of the party’s voter ID incentive scheme. More generally, it also promotes a vision of an active, campaigning, engaged party, one very different from the Blair years.

Some of the claims it makes need to be taken with a healthy dose of caution, however. For example, the idea that local campaigning can make a huge difference is strongly trailed in the document: ‘The seats doing the most local work defied the trend,’ it says, and, ‘Local campaigns make a tremendous difference to election results.’ But some academic studies question this, suggesting local campaigning is relevant only in the most marginal of seats with most voter behaviour decided at a far remove from local campaigns.

It also claims that ‘regular selection and re-selection procedures have improved the accountability of our representatives both locally and nationally’. For those with long memories, this procedure was a key victory for the left, on a matter of democratic principle, one eventually introduced in 1979, so the statement is true in that sense. However, it rather glosses over the extent to which the national party has vetted and imposed parliamentary, mayoral and devolved assembly candidates, something which has rather eroded this aspect of democratic accountability.

Wide-ranging suggestions

The document ranges over such a lot of ground, and flags up so many possible changes, that it’s not possible to survey them all. However, there are some important ideas which should be noted, including:

• opening out the party to Labour supporters: both informally (through local meetings and campaigns), semi-formally (setting up a body of registered supporters), and formally (allowing them to play a role in electing leaders, selecting parliamentary candidates, and contributing to policy).
• making policy-making more transparent and accountable
• reaffirming conference as the party’s supreme decision-making body: including minority reports from the National Policy Forum to be debated and voted on at national conference (an idea the ILP argued for back when the NPF was brought in)
• holding local party discussion meetings, rather than the arid, formal format usually adopted, and even staging a ‘Compass-style’ annual ‘festival’
• extending the reduced membership fees scheme (currently it’s £1 for under 27-year-olds) to other groups of potential members.

Consultation

The document finishes with four groups of questions which are intended to be the focus responses.

First, how do we make an outward looking party?

The questions here cover changes to local organisation, to the relationship with affiliated organisations, and to the roles of MPs and councillors.

Second, how do we improve the voice for members?

This group includes an incredible 37 questions covering how to give members more say and more responsibility; changes to the role of conference, voting at conference, the organisation of debates, and making conference less corporate; how to give non-members a voice in the party; and whether to continue with or alter the NPF.

Third, how do we renew the party?

These questions ask how the party should engage with others in decision-making; how to extend the party’s links beyond trades unions; what new methods of activism should be promoted; and how to get better gender representation.

Finally, how do we win back power?

Here the questions ask: what can be learned from the Edgbaston example; what changes should we make to candidate selection; what relationship should there be between local and national campaigns?

A managed opportunity for change?

Overall, Refounding Labour is very welcome. Its aim of renewing the party and creating a living organisation with new campaigning links to wider society, is an admirable one. It recognises that Labour could be more than a semi-dormant and increasingly dysfunctional electoral machine.

The open consultation process provides a space for those of us who have long argued for a revitalised, democratic party, engaging in real political debate, to voice our ideas. It presents some sharp issues that members will have to express a view on, such as whether to allow non-members a formal say in party affairs.

However, time is short and it is far from clear whether this openness will carry on through the summer. We do not know for instance if we will have access to other party members’ responses – will these be made public, will we be able to see for ourselves the balance of opinion?

We do not know how the inevitably broad range of opinions will be turned into concrete proposals by the NEC – who will make sense of the consultation responses and choose a ‘representative’ set of reforms to enact?

And we do not know what kind of debate will be possible once the NEC has put forward its vision – will they be voted through wihtout adequate discussion in the way conference currently makes decisions?

—-

This is based on an introduction to a discussion on Refounding Labour at the ILP’s 2011 Weekend School.

Other talks from the weekend, on the ILP’s politics and the Conservative-led government are also available.

This may be a propaganda move on the leader’s part as the Tories are unlikely to accept such a low figure but even so there are major implications for the trade union contribution to Labour, at least in its present form. Allies of Miliband deny that he wants a symbolic break with the unions in order to tackle the supposed ‘Red Ed’ image propagated by the Tory press but whether an Obama style campaign to attract small donors via the internet can really replace the millions given by the affiliated unions is highly debatable.

Of even greater concern is a claim that the leader wants to give 25 per cent of the electoral college to non-party members who register as Labour ’supporters’. To make this possible MPs, trade unionists and party members would each have their share of the college reduced from one third to one quarter.

Presumably Labour ’supporters’ could also be given a say in the selection of parliamentary candidates as well. All of which leaves me scratching my head asking the question – if this sort of thinking is put into practice what would be the point of being a member in the first place?

Answers on a party card please.

It goes without saying, therefore, that the views of the leadership candidates on these issues are of great interest to party members.

Two months ago the ILP contacted all five candidates to ask for their thoughts on party democracy and, in particular, to find out how they intend to reform party structures so members can have more influence on policy.

We received replies from three – Diane Abbott, Ed Balls and David Miliband – and summarise these below.

We have supplemented their responses with remarks they have made in campaign material, on their websites, and to other organisations. We have also added relevant material from Andy Burnham and Ed Miliband, gleaned from similar sources.

Our interest in these issues is neither random nor new. The ILP has a long history of campaigning on questions of Labour Party democracy going back to the 1970s when it was one of the first groups to argue that leaders should be elected by the whole party, not just by MPs.

In the 1980s we were one of the few groups on the left to argue for the principle of one member one vote as a means of selecting parliamentary candidates at constituency party level and electing party leaders and deputy leaders. The ILP was often isolated on the left in embracing this extension of democracy, although we differed from the leadership in wanting to tie members’ voting to branch attendance in an attempt to maximise political dialogue.

The broad campaigns on party democracy succeeded in creating the electoral college we have today and one member one vote was finally adopted under John Smith’s leadership in 1993. However, with the rise of new Labour, the extension of party democracy was reversed.

In the 1990s we criticised new Labour’s ideas for restructuring the party set out in a document called Labour into Power: A framework for partnership, which first introduced proposals for national and regional policy forums, and we also responded to discussions around the party’s trade union links.

In all these cases, the ILP’s arguments were based on some key principles, namely:

• that the Labour Party should be a model of healthy democracy
• that policies and party leaders should reflect the views of the members
• that no section of the party should have an unfair advantage.

They were also grounded in the ILP’s political perspective – that a truly democratic Labour Party, with a ‘neutral constitution’ and a culture of open debate, respect, tolerance and active participation, is a necessary part of any attempt to build a broad-based movement for progressive social change.

As Eric Preston wrote in On the Block: the future of Labour’s trade union links, published in the mid-1990s:

‘In an organisation such as the Labour Party, which has ambitions to improve and change society, and not simply inherit and continue the administration of what is, there will always be disagreement… We should not be ashamed of disagreement, or run away from it, or seek to hide or stifle it. The clash of ideas should be seen as an opportunity, not a disaster. It is the bedrock of democracy…

‘Democracy must rule within the party, and by example prefigure the democratic society we seek to attain.’

Of course, we recognise that party democracy, while important, is not the only issue on which members will (or should) judge the candidates. Nor are we offering here any kind of assessment of their proposals and promises. But we do hope the information and pointers provided below are useful for those who, like us, regard democracy as crucial to the party’s future.

What the candidates say

Diane Abbott

We were referred to Abbott’s ‘Diane 4 Leader’ website, http://diane4leader.net/home/, where we found her ‘Letter to CLPs’ in which Abbott lists five promises to members. Two of these are:

• CHANGE for our POLITICS – Restore Labour Party Democracy, replace suffocating control with debate to reach out to lost allies and engage new supporters
• VALUES for our POLICIES – Listen to our members and avoid the mistakes of the Iraq invasion, Student Top-Up Fees and attacks on civil liberties.

‘It’s time to renew and re-energise our party, its membership and its democracy,’ she says.

In a document entitled ‘Background information for CLPs’, her campaign lists party democracy as one of four reasons why party members should support her candidacy:

• Diane believes that the Labour Party foot-soldiers deserve more respect. At the last election, without the loyalty and hard work of ordinary party supporters the result would have been much worse than it was.
• If the party had listened to ordinary members, it would have not have made mistakes like: the 87p rise for pensioners; abolishing the 10p tax rate and going to war with Iraq.
• Shaping policy should not just be a matter for the Westminster elite. We need to reform party structures to revive the party and give more power to members. Party Conference, the Policy Forums and the workings of the National Executive must be reformed to give members a real say over policy.

She goes into more details of her plans in a blog written on 5 August headed ‘Party Democracy: Time to get our house in order’. In it she states that ‘Labour Party members have been taken for granted’ for the past 13 years:

‘Under my leadership, the way the party organises itself will change,’ she writes. ‘As leader I will lead Labour in a new direction, and not merely by re-establishing the post of elected party chairman… We should also seriously consider a Charter of Labour Party Members’ Rights, together with a new post of Ombudsman, and a Code of Ethics. I will also review Partnership in Power and create processes for policy formulation and party operations, including a transparent separation of functions between the party in government and party HQ.’

She goes on:

‘Under my leadership, there will be an opening-up of the annual conference, with an increased role for outside voices and organisations; a re-alignment between its formal and fringe aspects; a fresh look at the contemporary resolutions process, which would allow for more discussion in the run-up; and a move away from the stage management. I also will look at ways of establishing rights of policy amendment at conference together with a resolution procedure in the event of a conference vote against either a party in government or an NEC policy recommendation. If people are worried about vigorous debate, we can hold some sessions without TV cameras present.’

You can read the full article here: http://diane4leader.co.uk/party-democracy-time-to-get-our-own-house-in-order/

Ed Balls

The Ed Balls campaign pointed us to an article Balls had written for Labour Values which can be read at: http://www.edballs4labour.org/blog/?p=89

In ‘Rebuilding Labour from the ground up’ he argues that the leadership campaign is an opportunity to ‘re-engage with the communities we are elected to serve’.

‘Political aims, vision and policies aren’t enough unless Labour can also be a community-based political party rooted in the communities we represent,’ he writes. ‘There are three tests of how well our politics are rooted: are we ensuring our representatives better reflect the people we serve? Are we building membership in those communities? Is our policy making coming up from the ground through Conference to the leadership?

‘Party members are the heart and soul of the labour movement and we need to reverse the over-centralisation of our party structures and decision-making to give greater involvement and responsibility to our membership and affiliated organisations.’

He also says he supports the establishment of a Labour Party diversity fund to help people from ‘under-represented groups to stand at every level of the party’. He writes about his support for the trade union link and calls for a strengthened youth and student movement.

On party structures, Balls calls for a strengthened role for the party chair, a full-time youth officer, and for leaders of local and regional parties to be involved in the NEC.

He also appears to have strong views about membership and policy-making:

‘People who join the Labour Party need to feel they have a real say. Once you’ve decided to take the plunge and join you would hope and expect to talk politics and not just instantly be asked to deliver a handful of leaflets.’

On policy, he writes: ‘Too often our party leadership has made decisions at the centre and then sent them out for “consultation” once policy had been hammered out between union leaders and the party elite.

‘The National Policy Forum was set up to engage the party in policy-making, but too many members feel it has been used as a way of managing them and making for an easier Annual Conference for the leadership…

‘The National Policy Forum is still too focussed on these big national meetings which tend to be dominated by “deals”. We simply swapped the fixes and wheeler-dealing of the old party conference for the NPF.

‘This has to change. It needs a culture change at the top. The Labour movement is not there to be managed, it has a talent with a potential which should be unleashed. I strongly believe that the role of Annual Conference must be enhanced – not just as the sovereign body over rules and policy – but the place where we debate the big issues facing our country and how they affect working people.

‘As well as enhancing Conference, we need to strengthen the role of the National Policy Forum, regional policy forums and our local party meetings too so that party members no longer feel like their role in policy making is cosmetic.’

Ball’s campaign leaflet (http://www.edballs4labour.org/leaflet/EB2010.pdf) summarises these arguments in a number of ‘pledges’, later expanded in other election literature under the heading, ‘My contract with the Party’:

• I will increase party membership and defend and strengthen the crucial trade union link
• I will give party conference back to members
• I will reform our party’s policy-making process
• I will drive a culture change in the Labour Party to support greater representation for women
• I will set up the party’s first ever Diversity Fund
• I will end undemocratic imposed selections and start selection much earlier
• I will give a more powerful voice to party members
• I will nurture talent on our party and help our youth and student movement grow.

David Miliband

Of all the campaigns contacted, David Miliband’s team sent the lengthiest reply. Here it is in full:

‘David wants to engage with the wider public and with the grassroots of the Party. As a result, a large focus of his campaign has been on talking to people – at hustings, on conference calls, on webchats. One of his proposals to make Labour a more democratic party is the idea of electing a Party Chair.

‘As part of his campaign, David is also training 1000 future leaders in the skills and techniques of community organising so Labour can once again be a living breathing movement in communities. This will help rebuild membership and reach out to new constituencies of people. He is also targeting a doubling of party membership by the next election.

‘This project is the ‘Movement for Change’ and you can see the video of the launch at this link:

http://www.davidmiliband.net/2010/06/05/i-will-rebuild-the-labour-movement-from-the-bottom-up/

‘David’s vision for the campaign is to change the way that the Labour Party does politics. He has laid out a set of pledges as to how to increase transparency and democracy for members, which can be found here:

http://www.davidmiliband.net/what-i-believe/my-vision-for-the-party/

1. I will return democracy to the Party starting with an elected Party Chair.

The voice and power of members has been eroded in recent years. We can only reconnect with our values and our voters if we have an authentic voice – that means more democracy. I would support an elected Party Chair, voted for by you, as a democratic voice for Party members around the Shadow Cabinet table.

2. I will double Party membership.

I reject the old political culture which sees members as cheerleaders, or as a problem to be controlled. I will replace the Labour Supporters Network with a real recruitment resource for local parties: locally owned networks of people who identify with our values. I will rebuild our Party as a mass movement for change.

3. I will defend the union link and recruit trade unionists to Labour.

The Tory Liberal government plan to break the union link – I will fight against them tooth and nail. I will strengthen our links with the 3 million workers who pay the political levy with a national drive to recruit trade unionists to our Party.

4. I will lead with action, not words: offering training for 1,000 future leaders.

My commitment to rebuilding our Party is more than just words. My leadership campaign will offer 1,000 Party members training in community organising skills during the campaign – with more to follow.

5. I will give a voice for Labour councillors in the Shadow Cabinet.

Local government is the last line of defence against the Tories and the place where our ideas for the future can be tested. We need to value councillors more. I want the leader of Labour’s councillors to sit in the Shadow Cabinet.

6. I will support representation for Scotland and Wales on the NEC.

Britain’s politics have changed dramatically because of devolution yet our Party’s structures have not. I would provide a link between the UK and Scottish and Welsh parties by supporting the creation of Scottish and Welsh positions on the NEC.’

He expanded on the thinking behind some of these ideas in his Keir Hardie lecture on 9 July (http://www.davidmiliband.net/2010/07/09/keir-hardie-lecture-2010/), in which ahe said:

‘I don’t wish to simply be leader of the Labour Party. I seek to renew the Labour Movement – in idea and in organisation. Building relationships and a common life through common action for the common good in communities across the country…

‘We have to make democracy our ally again, outside and inside our party. The lack of democratic discussion, the hollowing out of the party, our administrative and managerial methods meant that we were seen as a fearsome but not attractive political machine.’

Andy Burnham

Burnham’s manifesto, Aspirational Socialism, can be found here: http://andy4leader.com/2010/08/aspirational-socialism-the-manifesto/

As far as we can see it doesn’t include any proposals or specific ideas for reforming the party or party democracy.

However, in a response to a question about representation in Labour’s shadow cabinet and the PLP, he replied:

‘The party I lead will offer additional training and mentoring for our newly-elected representatives, which is particularly important for young, women and BAME members for whom the support has too often simply not been available. I will also ensure that the proportion of women across Shadow and Government reflects, as a minimum, the proportion of women in the Parliamentary Labour Party. My online manifesto calls for Labour to continue the great progress made with all-women shortlists to ensure there are more women in Parliament and on the Labour benches.

‘Providing support and listening to our members and those within the Labour family are key to Labour’s future success, to end the disconnection between the Party, its members and supporters. That means closer ties to the trade union movement, not just at the top of the Party, but from constituencies up. Working together, we can be a force for good within our communities and ensure that we never again lose sight of what it means to be Labour.’

More recently, in a letter to party members, he promises to ‘rebuild Labour from the bottom up as a truly democratic party that trusts its members, values its councillors and works constructuvely with our trade union partners. The Labour Party I lead will be a mass membership party, an active force on the ground in your community and the natural home, once again, for young people who want to change the world.’

Ed Miliband

In an article for Labour Values (http://edmiliband.org/learnmore/our-party/), Ed Miliband talks of leading ‘a revolution of activism within our party’ so that it becomes ‘a party rooted in communities, dynamic and campaigning that can win the argument for a fairer, more equal and more democratic Britain’.

He writes:

‘A simple start would be to be open about how many members we have in different areas and what they are doing for their communities. It shouldn’t be difficult to double our membership, we all know at least one person who voted Labour at the last election who might want to join. But the reason for joining should be clear; membership needs to be about what you can change rather than just attending meetings. We should recognise where this is already happening and give those local Parties the incentives to continue in their successes. The central Party should also be able to provide members with the tools and support to meet their goals…

‘I want to discuss how branches can reach out to other organisations that share our values; how we can make it easier for supporters to share all of their talents for the sake of their communities; how we can share power and responsibility so that activists can make decisions and a real difference; and I want to discuss how the lessons learned on the doorstep are spread across the country, for the sake of all.

‘The leadership has spent too much time treating the membership as a threat to sensible policy and direction, when in fact if we had listened more, on housing, on the 10p tax rate, on agency workers, we would have been a better government.’

Ed Miliband’s campaign leaflets include the promise to provide ‘a new role for party members’:

‘Creating a living, breathing movement with more to say for party members in policy making; greater focus on local campaigning; and an elected party chair.’

You can find links to the candidates’ manifestos here.

The candidates’ campaign websites are:

http://diane4leader.net/home/

http://www.edballs4labour.org

http://andy4leader.com

http://www.davidmiliband.net

http://edmiliband.org

‘Something is profoundly wrong with the way we live today. For thirty years we have made a virtue out of the pursuit of material self-interest: indeed, this very pursuit now constitutes whatever remains of our sense of collective purpose… The materialist and selfish quality of contemporary life is not inherent in the human condition. Much of what appears ‘natural’ today dates from the 1980s: the obsession with wealth creation, the cult of privatization and the private sector, the growing disparities between rich and poor. And above all, the rhetoric which accompanies these: uncritical admiration for unfettered markets, disdain for the public sector, the delusion of endless growth. We cannot go on like this.’ Tony Judt (2010)

I have a confession to make which may put a question mark over the validity of my views about the prospects for the left – or my preferred title: ‘The Future Left’.

When asked about the likely election result, I said that I thought that the Tories would gain a sufficient majority to govern alone. Nor was I quick to anticipate that there would be a Conservative-Lib Dem coalition. The only person I heard suggest this possibility was the historian, Simon Sharma, who raised the idea early on election night. Surprised to hear this, I immediately rang a close political friend who, like me, had never contemplated the prospect. Half and hour later, he rang back to say there might be something in it. So, as you can see, I am not exactly well-placed to make prognostications about the future left.

But perhaps I am not alone. In my defence, let me cite a recent article by two, young, right-wing Tories who are deeply critical of the way their leadership conducted their campaign. They argue that the reasons why the Tories failed to win an additional 20 seats and thereby gain a clear majority were:

• the grass roots of the party were demoralised by the centralised selection process and the imposition of candidates, and they failed to convince the voters
• the tightly-controlled campaign failed to listen to those on the ground, focussed on advertising not canvassing, and failed to utilise the depth of the team around David Cameron
• there was no clear, consistent Conservative message for campaigners to push on the doorstep
• traditional Tory supporters were turned off by the campaign.

From my own discussions with politics students, I learned that in one constituency, at least, Tory activists hated David Cameron.

Interestingly, some of these criticisms might equally apply to Labour’s campaign. My main fear – fortunately never turned into a public prediction – was that Labour might implode electorally to the advantage of the far right (for example, in Stoke Central). In part, this did not happen because, in spite of the issues surrounding Gordon Brown’s leadership style and the lack of a clear political message, Labour ran a well-organised campaign – and its members worked hard on the ground. Tribute to them for that, particularly given that since 1997 the party’s membership has halved.

Prospects for the left

Obviously how we understand the prospects for the left depends on how narrowly or broadly we define the left. I am defining the left broadly to include those critical of the consequences of capitalism as well as those who identify capitalism more sharply as the enemy. I want to include socialists and social democrats, as we ll as those who adopt broadly progressive views about social injustice and inequality.

First, some pointers:

1. Much depends on events beyond our control and on how we respond to the continuing economic recession: to the waves of cuts to the public sector and public provision; to the punishment of those who did not create the recession by those who did.
2. The progress of the new coalition. It’s too soon to say whether this turns out to be a new and lasting form of parliamentary politics or a Faustian deal that proves to the road to hell for the Lib Dems. We should not be too surprised at their ability to do deals. While they have policy differences, ideologically and culturally they have a lot in common.
3. The state of the left. However badly Labour did (particularly in the South East), having looked at it in detail the electoral support for the far left was, I think, insignificant. Labour is down but certainly not out. To some extent, it can be transformed. The leadership election is important in this respect but restoring democracy and making party membership meaningful is even more so, particularly after the damage done by new Labour. The party has to recognise that new Labour’s two Faustian deals disillusioned a huge swathe of progressive and humanitarian people, particularly among the young. Namely, the deal done with US imperialism over Iraq, which has had tragic consequences. Secondly, the deal struck with global capitalism in general, and the City in particular, which despatched a layer of the working class into political oblivion and further encouraged the growth of an inegalitarian, semi-detached, and corrupt society. The rot began at the top and spread downwards.

In part, how we respond to all this depends on how the debates are conducted, and on the role of the left and centre-left in the party.

I like some of what I’ve heard so far in the leadership debates. While I am inclined at this stage to support Ed Miliband, I was pleasantly surprised to hear what his elder brother, David, had to say recently. Having talked of the need, not just to appeal to the centre ground, but to move it, he acknowledged the need to rebalance the economy between financial services and other industries.

Among the points he made were:

‘I believe that inequality of power matters alongside inequalities of wealth and opportunity. Idealism is the lifeblood of the party. Not divorced from reality, but focussed on reality, which is too unequal, too insecure, and too unstable for the majority of the people.

‘So the question for Labour is how to achieve this connection with the public and loyalty to our own values. I think there is only one way: to recognise that the way we have been doing politics in government have made it more difficult not less to stay in touch with both the public and our values.

‘[Unless we change] the way we do politics – starting with this [leadership] campaign – we will not deserve to win. [A] political party that is not a living, breathing movement does not become a permanent party of government; it is on the road to opposition.

‘And that is what happened to us. So by 2010 we were left with an old model of party organisation out of touch with the modern needs of transparency, openness, pluralism, dialogue. We were disconnected from our voters but also from our members. And this is what has to change in a fundamental way. It is what I mean by a movement for change… and we should be campaigners for local change.’

In the pre-election period, Compass, the important, centre-left group in the Labour Party, the MP John Cruddas, and the editor of Soundings, all signalled the need for links with progressive Liberals, especially those around the Social Liberal Forum. They suggested their interest in such an alliance was being reciprocated.

I was a bit put out that they did not specifically mention ‘socialists’ as an important part of this alliance. Cruddas certainly talks about the importance of restoring ethical socialism to the Labour Party, saying: ‘We must go back to first principles of ethical socialism, a radical transfer of political power, social influence, income and wealth from labour to capital.’

I am also heartened by some of the ideas that Cruddas has been voicing about morality and community. He talks about a modern social democracy and, while I think this needs more critical scrutiny, especially about its limits, the idea is pushing in a positive direction.

Of the party, he notes the ‘loss of our language’ in terms of empathy and generosity, suggesting that we retreated into a framework of the right. He even calls for the restoration of neighbourliness and mutual support.

So I am hopeful that socialists can also be accommodated round his discussion table.

Compass recognises that a modern, progressive social democratic Labour Party is not enough to make real social change – it reaches out beyond the party to a variety of movements and campaigns. It is novel to hear the social democratic left – and I do not use the term in a negative way – make connections with others inside and, no less importantly, outside the party.

For me, a dialogue within and beyond social democracy, based on working and arguing fraternally together, is going to be vital. We all need to find ways to connect with wider society: with a new generation of younger people, much less attracted to the old, tribal loyalties; with sections of workers at the sharp end of cuts and facing unemployment; with families who are feeling the pinch; with an array of movements, about the environment, or seeking electoral reform; and with faith and community groups seeking social justice, such as London Citizens.

We need to regenerate a radical, political culture from below as the foundation for any material change. We need to combine parliamentary and extra-parliamentary struggles for change, and to experiment in new forms of politics.

However, there is a problem with the broad alliance approach. Unlike the traditional Marxist focus on the working class as the agency for social transformation, it is vaguer and messier. Politics is a messy, untidy business, but critics have a point – we do need to try to be more specific.

The strategy of a vague, broad alliance raises some questions for the left:

• Can a broad, diffuse alliance of forces become an agency for real change?
• If so, how can it be channelled, and in what direction? What sort of focus, or sense of political space, does it need?

I have a few crude suggestions of where we can start:

Our history

Socialist movements were primarily alliances between the organised working class and sections of the middle class based in cities – and they always did better in the north. They emerged from the grass roots, through local government and local struggles. It was the city that often provided the focus for political activity, for electioneering and campaigning.

In her book Twenties London: A City in the Jazz Age (2003), Cathy Ross says:

‘A 20th-century London emerged during the 1920s as a city with a renewed sense of public interest embodied in its public spaces, streets, buildings and services; but also a city in continual debate as to how controls could be reconciled with the city’s traditional virtues as a place of diversity and individual freedom.

‘The idea that London could be transformed into an ‘ideal city’ or ‘city beautiful’ was not exactly new, but what characterised the twenties chapter of the debate was the fervour with which the vision of the ideal city was linked to the public sphere. The public sphere was now generally acknowledged to be one of the main criteria by which London as a city would be judged as civilised. The enthusiasm for the public good was encouraged by democracy. The drive was to improve living conditions for the urban masses: brighter, cleaner streets; petrol; electricity.’

The city

I would suggest that:

• The city can be a basis for internationalism – for links with other cities across the globe, through twinning, via universities, and so on.
• The city can be a focus on resources – see participatory budgets in Port Alegre; and London Citizens’ campaigns for a living wage (originally formulated by the ILP in the interwar years).
• The city can be the basis for new forms of community and co-operation.
• The city can provide a focus for tackling what is happening to people’s lives – in areas such as transport and housing – and for bringing disparate peoples together on the basis of common interests, local and beyond.
• The city raises questions about the environment, ownership of land, and public provision.

Of course, this is not to deny the terrain of the state itself but I want us to reconsider the ‘local’ as part of the global.

Watching a production of ‘Counted’ at the West Yorkshire Playhouse recently, a play based on interviews with a wide range of people, particularly the young and politically disaffected, what came across was the sense that they feel they don’t really count. The politics of the city can help to address that and provides an opportunities to engage.

If we do, maybe, we can begin to challenge the disconnection between their lives and experiences and the future left.

This is an edited version of a talk given to the Leeds Soundings group and the ILP’s weekend seminar in Scarborough on 5/6 June 2010.

References:

Hilley, C. and Knight, J. (2010) Falling Short: Why ‘Project Cameron’ Failed to Get a Majority, Euro RSCG Apex Communications, May.

Judt, T. (2010) Ill Fares the Land: A Treatise on our Present Discontents, London: Allen Lane.

Miliband, D. (2010) Extracts from speech at Progress conference.

Ross, C. (2003) Twenties London: A City in the Jazz Age, London

‘On 16 June we commenced a campaign to get the candidates in the Labour Leadership Election to issue what we called “Manifestos of Intent”,’ says the website, run by Dronfield Labour Party discussion group.

‘We are now able to present these manifestos or provide relevant links to the candidates’ own web-sites where they have previously published this material themselves.’

You can view them here: http://dronfieldblather.blogspot.com/

In a conference hall not so far away, the labour left gathered on June 12^th for the Compass annual get together. Launching this year’s event, optimistically titled ‘A New Hope’, Compass chair Neal Lawson set off on a slightly curious note declaring ‘we’re not rebel fighters, we’re building a death star’. If that was slightly off-key, much of the rest of the conference followed, exposing a Labour left that is only slowly getting to grips with the new politics of opposition.

Of course, Compass by its nature is a very broad organisation and its conferences are interesting partly because of this, a large (1,000 people), comradely forum for the exchange of quite divergent views. In fact, over time, two ideas seemed to form a core of opinion at the conference: that proportional representation is essential for the future of left politics and that Labour should be a ‘pluralist, not tribalist’ party.

The first of these is a long standing one on the left and has been central to the efforts of those – from Blair and Ashdown leftwards – to fashion a realignment of politics around the centre left. Current government plans for a referendum on the AV system, with Tories campaigning against, leave this aim tantalisingly out of reach for those who see it as essential.

The second pillar – for a Labour politics that is not tribal but pluralist – is becoming a frequent refrain in Compass, among Labour leadership contenders and among the wider commentariat.

Pluralism

But there are very different versions of this call for pluralism. At the level of party politics, one explanation is that it is a reaction to the perceived failure of Labour to fashion an anti-Tory ‘rainbow coalition’ in the wake of the general election. The ‘tribal’ interventions of David Blunkett and John Reid, both of whom came in for considerable stick over the course of the conference, were seen by many to represent an ‘old politics’ that we need to move away from in the new coalition-dominated future.

There were also those present on the Labour left who clearly feel some empathy for the small parties that are seen as more left wing than Labour – such as the Greens’ Caroline Lucas who, despite having defeated a Labour candidate in the general election, was given an enthusiastic reception by this clearly non-tribalist crowd.

However, it was Lucas who presented the least compelling case for pluralism and highlighted the limited vision of this variant of political pluralism. Teaching the assembled grannies to suck eggs, she pronounced on how remaining in the Labour Party meant many people had to make difficult compromises to accommodate the distance between their own beliefs and the Labour’s policy. No shit. Her solution, for a flowering of smaller parties (like her own in fact!), in which members can feel comfortable in their purity leads down a strange path, however. The left knows something about this, having taken the purity strategy to absurd People’s Front of Judea lengths in the past. But it also ignores the question of what then? What happens after this party pluralism has blossomed and PR has delivered a parliamentary mosaic of principled representatives? Presumably there are real issues of principle that necessitated the creation of separate parties in the first place? Don’t they then have to engage in the very same dirty compromises that she was lamenting a few moments earlier?

Some even asked whether you would want to see a majority Labour government again, with the clear implication that if your answer was ‘yes’ then you were obviously still wedded to the ‘old politics’. But what is so inherently progressive about having to make deals with the David Laws of this world? or in giving concessions to Alex Salmond’s narrow, particularistic, nationalist demands?

Rather more convincing and carrying greater potential, is the idea of a pluralist politics that connects the Labour Party and parliamentary politics generally in a more open and constructive way with non-party groups and campaigns. A party that is active on a local level, engaged and engaging, and at the forefront of campaigns around opposition to cuts would indeed help reinvigorate Labour’s internal politics. Such ideas are clearly having some purchase on leadership candidates debates with both Milibands arguing for a revitalised, active campaigning party. Even here there may be dangers however, and the Blairite dream of a dissolution of party memberships into looser networks of supporters, clearly still has some adherents. Internal party democracy still ought to matter, and for that to mean anything then membership has to become again something real.

A progressive alliance?

On other issues the conference veered wildly in its reading of the contemporary political scene. Throughout there was a persistent sense of denial about the formation of the ConDem coalition which clearly shocked some speakers quite profoundly. Compass’ political strategy, such as it is, has centred on the formation of ‘the broad progressive coalition’ and one feels that the group still has to come to terms with the fact that this notion has been blown out of the water by the Liberals’ post-election choice. The continued adherence to PR and pluralism does look a bit less convincing in world in which a Lab-Lib coalition is no longer the central element.

Even so, Compass also continue to reject the Blairite notion that the country is essentially conservative with a small c. Their, and much of the left’s, argument against New Labour centred on this claim. Where New Labour used the ‘conservative’ nature of public opinion as a reason to move rightwards, those further to the left argued that this reading of the public’s values was mistaken. A different option that neither takes, is that New Labour was right on its assessment but wrong in not seeking ways – long term, hard and slow – of shifting that opinion. Lawson even commented that over thirteen years in government Labour did nothing to build a progressive movement. The left, one suspects on this evidence, would now rather take the easier option of thinking that the country is with us and build a political strategy on that assessment.

Indeed, several speakers cited the combined vote for Labour and Liberals as evidence of a ‘progressive majority’ in the country. Yet much in Labour and the Liberal manifestos was anything but progressive: both argued for substantial and damaging cuts, neither gave a convincing case for the public sector and against the private, neither presented a convincing critique of the financial sector, both indulged in anti-immigration gutter politics to pander to the ‘bigoted women’ (and men) of the country. Most amazing was New Statesman political editor, Mehdi Hassan, who cited the polling that 1 in 4 LibDems were unhappy with the coalition as evidence of a progressive opportunity, seemingly ignoring that that means 3 in 4 are happy with rampant expenditure cuts, the dismembering the public sector and the creation of a two-tier schools system.

In a warning that ought to give Compass and all on the left pause for thought, John Harris argued that ‘if your argument is also the one you are most comfortable with, it is probably wrong’. Maybe some in Compass fall prey to reading from the political landscape what they are comfortable seeing – a country that is ‘with us’ and a political strategy that seamlessly mobilises a coalition to bring the progressive majority into power through PR.

Coalitions and cuts

Opinions also differed markedly on the prospects for the ConDem coalition and what the appropriate response to the cuts should be. In a seminar on the cuts there was much debate over the appropriate balance between raised taxes and reduced expenditure. Only one speaker made a serious case for limiting cuts, arguing that the widespread austerity policies now being enacted in Europe would trigger a renewed recession. Some contributions from the floor were predictably simple – ‘we say no to cuts!’ – but in the main Polly Toynbee, who chaired the session brilliantly, did not allow simplistic answers, or questions, to go unchallenged.

A more serious omission was of any quid pro quo that the left should ask for in return for reduced public expenditure. If cuts are to be something other than a process of making the poorest pay for the sins of the financial sector, then they must be accompanied by some attempt to challenge the power of financial markets over the longer term. Several speakers cited ‘market reactions’ as a key reason why cuts were necessary, yet none signalled any discomfort with that situation. The irony that the very credit ratings agencies who acted so irresponsibly in the build up to the crisis should now be arbiters of what the government should or shouldn’t do did not seem to register with the speakers. Next to that, all the talk of a ‘Canadian-style’ consultation over the cuts, even democratic politics, comes to nought if markets have the final say.

How soon these questions bite will in part depend on the fate of the governing coalition. Here too, opinions differed. The coalition was, Lawson said, ‘the thing none of us expected’, a claim that betrays a certain lack of foresight if nothing else. Yet both he and John Harris were, rightly in my view, alert to the changed terrain that the coalition may bring into being, an ‘audacious grab’ for the centre-right ground that shared considerable continuities with Blairite policies and which could leave the left looking very isolated. Others, notably Mehdi Hassan of the New Statesman, were more hopeful of a quick end to the coalition, calling it ‘a strategic disaster for the Lib Dems’.

Leadership election

How well Labour responds to the coalition will depend on a revitalisation of the Party’s politics and so far the leadership campaign has not revealed any clear direction either. At a hastily arranged hustings, a packed hall listened to the assorted Eds, Milibands, Burnham and Abbott set out their stalls and answer the predictable questions on PR, cuts and schools. While the greatest cheer during the opening statements came for Diane Abbot, a walking embodiment of tokenism in this election, enthusiasm for her waned as the debate proceeded, possibly reflecting the vacuity of Abbott’s politics. More encouragingly, both Milibands and Andy Burnham emphasised revitalisation of the party and its membership as key aims though as yet none as spelled out a convincing programme of democratic reform of Labour’s internal structure.

Showing some in Compass what might have been, John Cruddas rounded off proceedings with a forceful and at times powerful speech. His attack on the ‘sour, shrill, hopeless politics’ of attacking the poor and immigrants was a direct and timely counter to those arguing that Labour lost the election by not being tougher on immigration. Cruddas’ alternatives, of a thorough ‘1987-like’ policy review, a revitalisation of Labour’s values and culture and a politics based on progressive English nationalism, are clearly based on his energetic campaign against the BNP and his view that Labour has fallen into a ‘moral and intellectual coma’. Whatever the shortcomings of his politics, Cruddas showed a passion and vision that is lacking from much of the race so far and his absence from the contest clearly disappointed some in Compass.

However, Lawson’s recognition that ‘the time perhaps is just not right’ for his kind of politics was an appropriate acknowledgement of where Labour and the left currently is. Looking rather more like a rebel band that has just taken a thrashing at the hands of imperial stormtroopers, the Compass conference was nevertheless an energetic and welcome moment to reflect on the options facing the left.

‘A New Hope is Forged’, a report of the Compass conference on its own website, is here.

For news of the Labour leadership campaign and information about the candidates, go here.