Do we need
another leader?
Back in the
seventies and early eighties CLPD led the struggle for greater accountability
of MPs and the leadership. The
democratic reforms then won made MPs more accountable to their CLPs (through mandatory reselection) and the leader and deputy leader to the whole
party (through an electoral college).
Whilst the reforms in relation to MPs have been gradually diluted, the principle that the leadership should be
accountable to the party is still part of the constitution. The provision that a Labour prime minister
be subject to re-election if requested by party conference remains
unchanged. This provision was never
activated. First because since its
introduction in 1981 the party was for 16 years in opposition. In general, elections were uncontested
except when the leader resigned or
died. Secondly because Blair and his
government until recently enjoyed the confidence both of the party and the
country.
This doesn’t mean
that everybody was happy. Thanks to the
dismantling of democratic structures through Partnership in Power - railroaded through conference in the wake of
Labour’s 1997 victory - the government was able to ignore occasional outbreaks
of dissatisfaction. These found
expression at conference in the success of contemporary resolutions sponsored
by the unions – on pensions, PFI, Foundation Hospitals - but achieved very
little.
This, of course, was nothing new. Ever since the election of the present leader “New Labour’s”
agenda consisted of the denial of members’ democratic rights coupled with the
abandonment of socialist policies.
Desperate to get rid of the Tories most members, including the major unions, have swallowed
the story that it was “New Labour’s”
policies and the curtailing of
internal democratic debates that made
Labour electable. Until recently therefore, any
dissatisfaction was moderated by Labour’s commanding lead in the opinion polls
and, of course, Labour’s second victory
in 2001.
The end of a myth?
During the past
year this has changed. First, the Prime
Minister’s support for Bush’s Iraq adventure turned out to be politically
disastrous. Blair’s popularity
plummeted. His continuing insistence
that weapons of mass destruction will be found, let alone his claims that they have already been found, have not
exactly inspired confidence in his
judgment. Secondly, the government’s
dogged pursuit of neo-liberal policies,
alienating Labour’s core
supporters, have led major unions to
elect leaders less accommodating to “New Labour”. The fact that this was the result of democratic internal
elections indicates that union members are dissatisfied with Blairite
policies. This reflects a more general loss of support for Labour. Current
opinion polls show Labour support remaining on or below 40%. - a level
which in 1974 produced a Labour government with a majority of one. Labour’s
dramatic defeat in the Brent East by-election demonstrates that Labour’s
decline is not confined to the opinion polls.
A volatile situation
Of course, much
can change over the next two years.
What is unlikely to change,
however, is the Prime Minister’s conviction that he is always right. Unless Labour’s prospects rapidly improve,
the party shouldn’t wait for the next
election before considering a change of leadership. If Blair’s egomanic blundering and his
doctrinaire commitment to “New Labour” ideology continue to dictate Labour’s
domestic and foreign policies this may give the Tories and LibDems the chance
to establish their electoral credibility.
The possiblility of Labour losing the next election should not be
underestimated.
CLPD aims to
promote socialist policies and democracy.
The only realistic way of achieving these aims is to pursue them within
the established organisations of the labour movement. This implies full involvement in these organisations and acceptance of their rules, as well as making
full use of such opportunities as these
rules provide.
What are the
opportunities to change government policies today? Since the introduction of Partnership in Power, rank and file
involvement in policy making has been severely curtailed. Members can participate only indirectly
through the National Policy Forum (NPF) which is supposed to draft the party’s
rolling programme to be presented to conference for approval. At present this is a purely perfunctory
exercise. NPF business is strictly
controlled from above. Some controversial policies are sometimes not discussed,
and if they are they may not be put to the vote. In any case a strong ministerial presence and unrepresentative
composition of CLP delegates ensures that there are few dissenting voices. Alternatives to government positions can
only be considered by conference if supported by at least 35 NPF members. So far no
minority position has received this support.[1] It is therefore not surprising that the
Forum’s proceedings arouse even less interest in the party than the
stage-managed national or regional conferences
Opportunities for direct input at conference have shrunk to
submission of “contemporary” motions and emergency resolutions. “Contemporary” motions are restricted to
topics not “substantively addressed” in the NPF and NEC Reports to
conference, or to events which have arisen since the publication of those
reports (generally August or early September).
Emergency resolutions must refer to issues or events which have arisen
in the final few days
before conference
(after mid-September).
Whether a motion
is a “contemporary” or an “emergency” one is decided by the Conference
Arrangements Committee (CAC). Until now
most CAC members allowed themselves to be guided by the advice of its paid
officers who in turn informally liaise with Downing Street. Topics not welcome to the leadership
are often ruled out on technicalities,
real or imaginary.
The only other
way of bringing pressure on the government to change its policies is by
exploring the use of the constitutional provision for a leadership change when
the party is in office. Section 4B.2
Procedural rules for Election of leader and deputy leader para d(ii) reads:
“when the PLP is in government and the
leader and/or deputy leader are prime minister and/or in Cabinet, an election
shall proceed only if requested by a
majority of party conference on a card vote.”
Accordingly what
is required is to put to conference a resolution demanding that the above procedure be set in motion and
instruct the NEC to convene a “special
session” of conference as provided for in Procedural Rules under 3C1.1
and 3C2.7. this demand would have to be incorporated into a contemporary or
emergency motion as this is the only
way open to CLPs and affiliated organisations wishing to bring to Conference
has the right to refer back part of any policy document without rejecting the
policy document as a whole. Conference shall also consider” conference matters of immediate concern
(subject to limitations governing such motions).
Such a
resolution, if passed, or even if only narrowly defeated, would convey to the
government and the prime minister the message that the party no longer supports
the policies they are pursuing. It
would not necessarily trigger off a leadership contest. Whether a contest takes place would depend
on the willingness of at least 20 per cent of members of the Parliamentary
Labour Party to nominate one of their number as a candidate for leader (or 12.5
percent if the position of the leader becomes vacant), and, of course, on the
willingness of any
prospective
nominee to stand.
What it would do
is to reassert the sovereignty of conference and send a message to the
leadership that there are limits to what the party is prepared to tolerate.
This article
appeared in CLPD’s AGM Bulletin No.40
Copies available
free on request
in writing [not
e-mail] to:
Vera Derer
10 Park Drive,
London, NW11 7SH
.
Tel.020:458:1501
[1] The difficulties faced by those seeking minority positions to reach conference are excellently described in the chapter entitled The Demented Octopus in Liz Davies’ book Through the Looking Glass (Verso 2001) . Liz Davies, who served on the NEC for two years, is regrettably, no longer a member of the Labour Party.