Campaign for Labour Party Democracy

Democracy - the spectre haunting New Labour

"The National Policy Forum would ensure that alternative views representing different constituencies of opinion in the party are presented in policy reports to annual conference ...." "Conference would remain the sovereign policy- and decision-making body...." So promised the Partnership in Power NEC document. In addition there'd be wider membership involvement in policy making. Those attending the Durham National Policy Forum (NPF) in July found a stark contrast between expectation and reality.

Promises, promises...

The NPF reports to the 1999 Annual conference will not contain the "alternatives" or "minority reports" provided for under para 3C2.1 of the Rulebook. Conference's only option will be to reject the reports en bloc. This contradicts the promise in the Partnership in Power that whilst "in the past policy statements have been presented on an all-or-nothing basis, under the rolling programme Conference would for the first time be able to have separate votes on key sections and proposals in the policy statement".

Obstacle race

The absence of "alternatives" or "minority reports" from the Conference agenda will not be because no amendments were submitted. In fact there were 215. But, to get to Conference, they had to survive an obstacle race. First they were inspected by the Joint Policy Committee (JPC) - composed of the PM with equal numbers from government and NEC.

In Durham, before proceedings opened, movers of amendments were invited to withdraw or modify them in the light of the JPC's recommendations. For example movers of amendments on pensions and other benefits, were pressurised to drop their motions in favour of a TGWU amendment urging the government to lead a national debate on the future of the welfare state. This would be the third review of pensions since 1996 Conference.

These moves were designed to prevent controversy on the Conference floor. Ian McCartney told the Forum to reflect genuine consensus and avoid giving any impression at Conference of conflict between party 'stakeholders'. 26 movers, however, stood firm hoping to ensure at least debates on the pensions/earnings link, benefits for 16/17-year-olds, incapacity benefits cuts and trial by jury.

But the 'modernising' organisers were well prepared. The procedure laid down by the JPC allows an alternative or a minority report only if "the NPF is unable to reach a majority consensus view" and the amendment obtains more than 25% support from Forum members present. But just in case Forum attendance is poor, the threshold is raised to 20% of the Forum's entire membership of 175. In Durham, with only 90 delegates present, this would have required 40% support.

Not surprisingly the 26 amendments were defeated - without debate. Ministers had 20 minutes each to demand rejection of the amendments whilst their movers were not even allowed to speak.

Ideological strait-jacket

The Durham experience reveals the hidden agenda of "New Labour's" project to "democratise" party structures. Ideological control is being imposed on a wayward membership. Politics is not for them. It is unfortunate they should think that they're entitled to some say.

In the past members were able to submit to Conference resolutions of their choice. This meant Party policy was discussed in public. It meant openness, transparency and accountability. This was thought bad for Labour's image; Conference's scope for debate had to be curtailed.

But to impose restrictions on free speech at Conference would be unpopular. In any case Conference's composition, divided equally between constituency and trade union delegates - "New Labour" trusts neither - makes its decisions unpredictable. In the seventies and early eighties Conference questioned the leadership's monopoly of power. No amount of obsequiousness by most trade union leaders will convince the parliamentary establishment that this won't happen again. As for CLPs, their members are already electing 'lefties' to the NEC's CLP Section.

Nothing left to chance

The problem had to be tackled and the creation of the NPF was the solution. Members and trade unions were deprived of direct policy input into Conference, but allowed to send their representatives to the Forum. Here they could talk politics but the Forum's structure and procedural rules ensure that the leadership gets its way. Unlike at Conference, constituency members and trade unionists form only about a half the Forum. The leadership and top trade union bureaucracy have in practice a built-in majority. As seen in Durham dissenting views are not passed on, so Conference cannot vote on them. Even the accounts of NPF proceedings are not left to delegates to write. Reports sent to CLP secretaries in several regions, though signed by some of the delegates, had identical wording. Thus members get only a filleted account of what happens.

Democracy denied

The Durham experience is only one example of a general pattern. Members are being denied not just a say in determining Labour's policies but also the choice of who is to represent Labour. Candidates for the Scottish Parliament, Welsh Assembly and European Parliament were chosen not by one-member-one-vote but but by panels appointed by the party establishment. Moves are already afoot to dismantle what remains of the party's representative democracy at local level. The leadership's initiative in giving serious consideration to proportional representation for Westminster reflects its opposition to the democratic socialist aspirations of Labour's rank and file. For these could never be achieved by minority Labour governments dependent on Lib-Dem support.

Retrospective falsification

One reason for the leadership's fear of membership participation is the myth that it was tensions within the party which led to the defeat of the last Labour government. In fact it was the dissatisfaction with the Labour governments 1964-70 and 1974-79, culminating with the Winter of Discontent which lost Labour power. It was the Callaghan/Healey policy of unreasonable pay restraint - a policy pursued despite warnings from unions and Conference - , which provoked a rebellion of underpaid public sector workers. Failure to listen to Labour's rank and file led to this disastrous policy.

By dismantling the party's democratic structures the leadership is putting an end to members' ability to warn the government when its policies are not working. Our suggestions for 'contemporary resolutions' in this Newsletter seek to ensure that the voice of the membership is not silenced. For, as the recent Euro elections have demonstrated, the government cannot silence the electorate.

Back to Bulletin contents