I was probably quite naive about Refounding Labour. I thought it started out well, the editable, visible wiki format for the consultation was great. The Murphy-Boyack Scottish Review seemed genuinely engaged.
It’s all gone badly wrong. Despite the heroic efforts of the likes of Johanna Baxter, the UK Review seems destined to be a stitch up of epic proportions. Details of proposals are leaking out slowly, the NEC only agreeing final recommendations on the Tuesday before Conference votes on them on Sunday evening with the delegates having had the full proposals in their hands for a matter of hours.
Never mind having time to consult with their constituency parties to get a considered view, they’ll barely have had time to read them. Presumably it’ll be a take-it-or-leave-it vote as voting on it chapter by chapter would take too much time from the important conference business of drinking. This is a classic party stitch up. The only real consultation and feedback is being on unofficial blogs. In the words of the great philosopher, good grief.
Now, I did some phone banking for Ed during the leadership campaign because I thought he had the ruthless streak we needed. So far, he hasn’t disappointed on that front – the move to appoint the shadow cabinet directly for instance. But every single move is undermining the democratic structures that are left in the party, which is precisely the opposite of what was promised. I want ruthless but I want ruthless in the right direction, damnit!
The Scottish Review is similarly vexing. The consultation wasn’t as good, with preliminary changes happening soon after it started, and the final Scottish Executive Committee meeting happening before they’d have had time to print off submissions from the last day.
The first set of changes bringing in a candidates contract was fair enough, but not exactly uncontroversial in some quarters. The 2nd tranche, looking at internal party structures was broadly good but the way that it’s being handled is.. disappointing. More importantly, there’s a lot of vagueness and how those changes sit in the context of the wider review recommendations still to come is important. How will the political strategy board work with the policy making process? Will policy forums still exist? Will the new Holyrood oriented CLPs (a good move, particularly given the inherent instability of Westminster boundaries if those changes pass) be able to choose from a range of structures from delegate only to all member, one member one vote? Will the Scottish Labour Leader have authority over MPs and MEPs on non-devolved issues that affect Scotland? Who knows!
The Scottish Review seems to be on inputs only with members having very few, if any, way of influencing the outcome. The full report is unlikely to be published in time for the special conference to agree the rule changes. It’s not clear if the conference will vote on the proposed package as a whole or if the individual changes will be voted on separately. There is very little time for people to reflect on the changes, most parties will have 1 branch meeting and 1 constituency meeting before conference. Half a dozen bullet points on a webpage do not a full and inclusive discussion make.
Worse, the changes to the leadership rules seem to have been prejudged, the first hustings will take place on the day of the special conference itself so if they don’t pass god knows what’ll happen. Tom Harris might find himself all dressed up with nowhere to go. The member’s reps on the SEC and NEC have done good work (which I appreciate), but this is the sort of high handed, authoritarian, centralising, control freakery which people found so objectionable and which stops members engaging with the party and lead us to two epic defeats. Have we forgotten that? Are we still too bloodied and dazed, slumped in the corner that we think pugilistic party management is the way to go?
Maybe I’m expecting too much. Maybe I’m too used to full and frank debate in decision making, where some says weigh more than others but everyone has a say and everyone has a vote. But Clause IV says Labour is a “democratic socialist” party and this feels profoundly undemocratic. That’s important, there are things in the review which won’t work and people will find objectionable at the time and after the fact. But if they’ve had a proper chance to consent to them, those changes won’t be resented as much as if they’re imposed from on high.
#1 by Jeff on September 21, 2011 - 5:56 pm
It all sounds like a bit of a dog’s breakfast so far to me Aidan. Hopefully it’s still in the scoping phase and inconsistencies and anomalies can be straightened out in good time.
The key decision that you mention for me is this one: “Will the Scottish Labour Leader have authority over MPs and MEPs on non-devolved issues that affect Scotland? Who knows!”
I can see benefits (and problems) either way. There may be an advantage to having a situation that is not so clear, then you can have more leaders than there really are! But I suspect confusion and infighting would reign unless it is clear who is in charge.
That said, I don’t see MPs and MEPs wanting to be dictated to by an MSP and yet I don’t see how Labour can adjust to the new Scotland without a true, distinct Scottish leader.
Tough call, glad it’s not mine to make. Good luck!
#2 by Aidan on September 21, 2011 - 9:02 pm
You’d hope so, but there’s no bloody time, this is all being hammered through at a tremendous rate for no good reason except it gives the powers that be the changes they want.
#3 by Steve on September 21, 2011 - 8:17 pm
I’m torn between making one of two comments, so I’ll give you both.
I try to be positive and constructive, I really do, so first let me say, I think it is important that a party with the history and membership of the Labour party gets its act together, so hang in there, I hope people like you, Aidan, win out and the party moves in a progressive direction.
The other comment is, yawn, Labour party in disregard for the views of its membership shocker.
#4 by Aidan on September 21, 2011 - 9:00 pm
I know, who could have expected this sort of behaviour from a political party. I mean, apparently even the Green Party of England and Wales has started down that route…
#5 by James Morton on September 21, 2011 - 11:42 pm
To have a proper review would require one to very honest about what went wrong. The problem with politicians of any stripe these days is the ability to admit wrong-dong of any kind. They also seem to have developed an odd ability of desperately trying not to have an opinion on any issue that really matters. So if you go into a review process of the why, the where and the how and you have a bad case of blinkers and tin ear-itis – then it’s pretty much a given a that the process is tainted from the get go.
As for who will lead, you have an issue were you have a shrinking pool of talent from which to draw. This leaves you with the career corporals of the party – who couldn’t quite cut it or make much of an impression to get a job except as someone’s aide. If this under-achiever has no wish to be seen rocking the boat or having a vision for fear of offending the powers that be, then you will get a timid non-achiever who runs to hide in a sandwich shop rather than – you know – talk to voters, even if they are angry about taxes and tax dodgers. A man who can’t handle an angry public is not the sort of man you want leading a political party. Sadly the this is who the labour party picked – I suspect they will go for someone similar, largley because the underachievers are that’s left.
#6 by Indy on September 22, 2011 - 8:38 am
I don’t understand how delegates can be expected to vote on something that they have only had a few hours to read. Does that mean that they have to vote on the whole package, that there is no ability to put in amendments? That seems extraordinary.
How does that work constitutionally? Because when the SNP went through a similar process post 2003 there were a number of changes proposed which meant amending the constitution and rules of the party. And there is a process for that, due notice must be given, branches are able to put in amendments and changes to the constitution and rules require a two thirds majority. The whole thing was in fact debated line by line at a special conference. It was quitea wearying process but the advantage of it is that at the end of the process it is clearly the party, rather than the leadership, which has taken the final decisions.
#7 by Aidan on September 22, 2011 - 11:33 am
Unclear, who knows, in theory it’s not possible but seems to be what’s going to happen.