Now that my
political activity is focused on the Labour Party in Brighton and Hove I blog a
lot less.
As we approach
the most realistic possibility of a socialist-led Government in my lifetime all
those of us who hold any position in the Party, at any level, must be
persistently cautious of giving any ammunition, in any way, to the many
opponents of such an outcome.
This also
requires us to be circumspect in commenting upon internal Party controversies
(which will themselves increase over the coming period). However, those of us
who have been active in the movement for decades do owe our comrades the
benefit of that experience and must occasionally risk comment if we are to
communicate this.
I was
encouraged when the Party established the Democracy Review, both by the fact of
the Review and that responsibility was given to a friend and comrade, former
UNISON employee and former Labour MP Katy Clark.
I was further
encouraged by the leaked details of the Review, particularly in relation to
local government, which is currently my major area of interest. The proposal to
replace the current structure of Local Campaign Forums (and the absurd privileging
of Councillors over members) with Local Government Committees composed entirely
of delegates from CLPs and affiliates was an excellent and appropriate
improvement.
Therefore it
was disappointing to read reports from the Party’s National Executive Council
suggesting that there was – and is – not a majority for the bulk of the
Democracy Review proposals. Disappointing – but not surprising.
The trade union
delegates on the NEC are not ever going, collectively, to be a force for
radical change (unless and until the changes which have been wrought in the
Party as a result of the transformation of our membership in recent years are
repeated in the trade unions themselves).
The
relationship between the Party and the trade unions is the bedrock on which the
Party rests. It is the most important reason why our Party could never be
completely transformed into a purely pro-capitalist political organisation, and
socialists should always defend, and seek to deepen and democratise the
relationship between the unions and the Party.
However, it is
very important not to have illusions in the role which representatives of the
unions within the Party will perform, as long as the unions are themselves, to
a large extent, controlled by their own bureaucracies.
Historically
the Labour Left has often been very poor at understanding the political nature
of the trade unions. The Campaign Group of MPs were traditionally deferential
to trade union General Secretaries – and much of the Labour Left shared the
inability of the Communist Party to comprehend the role of the bureaucracy in
the trade unions (or, I suppose, the former Soviet Union).
Union members
can influence the conduct of our trade unions, and their representatives, who
have to be mindful of our views as members – but we do not exercise meaningful
control over the paid officials whose day to day practice is what trade unions
(as political organisations) “do”.
The best we can
hope for, as long as the unions remain as they are, is for the activists in the
Party to be able to broker compromises and form tactical alliances from time to
time.
That is not to
say that change is impossible, just that it hasn’t happened yet.
