Labour Party Conference has changed the Rules of every
Constituency Labour Party (CLP) to require the CLP to convene an All Member’s
Meeting (to vote on abandoning a delegate and General Committee based
structure) if this is called for.
If a majority of members at such a meeting support such a
proposal, the Constituency General Committee would be abolished and replaced
with periodic meetings open to every member of the CLP.
Since some of those most opposed
to All Member Meetings are on the Party’s Right, some comrades have
concluded that this radical innovation might be something which the Left, and
in particular supporters of the Party’s leadership, should get behind.
Indeed two recent advocates of All Member Meetings argue
that these will be an antidote to right-wing manipulation of their Constituency
Labour Party – but that seems to be wrong from the perspective of our
experience in Brighton and Hove.
An All Member Meeting, if it is successful enough in drawing
members to be large, is a far blunter instrument with which to hold an
Executive to account than is a General Committee. In practice, an Executive
reflecting one point of view is less likely to have difficulty “managing” the
Party in the teeth of opposition within the membership if it organises and
choreographs occasional mass meetings than if it has to face monthly accountability
to a General Committee of delegates elected by branches and affiliates.
In an All Member Meeting structure, the role of branches in
making policy is necessarily diminished – why turn up to attend a policy debate
in your branch as an individual member when you can also attend the mass
meeting to which any motion from the branch will be sent?
Nor do All Member Meetings give greater opportunity for
member participation – if seven branches have a debate, each for twenty
minutes, perhaps half a dozen members in each branch will have time to contribute
to discussion – for forty two members to have their say at an All Member
Meeting that same debate would need to last for more than two hours.
I think that support for All Member Meetings often reflects
a desire for a swift (political) solution to the domination of Parties with a
leftwing majority in the membership by an experienced and entrenched right-wing
leadership.
Similarly, I have heard arguments that the
disenfranchisement of affiliates (which is an unavoidable consequence of doing
away with a General Committee) should not trouble socialists because the trade
unions are dominated by their bureaucracies and therefore delegates from
affiiates could hold back the socialists policies supported by the rank and
file (individual) Party membership.
Aside from the argument (rooted in local experience) that
there is nothing inevitable about union delegates being right-wing in practice,
both these desires to resolve political problems by organisational changes are
flawed.
They miss the point that it is not the objective of
socialists to win votes in Labour Party meetings – our objective is to
transform society. We need to shape our Labour Party to be a useful tool in
achieving this wider objective. This is more important than that Party meetings
should be convivial, exciting, enriching or enjoyable.
In order for a left-led Government to stand the slightest
chance against the enormous forces which will be ranged against it from the
ruling class, the establishment and the deep state, we will need a campaigning
Labour movement – not just the Party – able to mobilise mass support for
socialist policies. We need to bring the trade unions with us (and as trade
unionists we need to organise for democracy and member-control) – and we need a
Party rooted in localities (which depends upon a vibrant branch structure).
I accept that I write as Chair of a Constituency Labour Party
with over 3,000 members – and that there may be different considerations in
different areas. However, I doubt very much that All Member Meetings will ever
make any local Labour Party a more effective tool for us to wield in the
struggle for socialist transformation.
Transport and cost is another factor to be considered, as both limit member attendance. In geographically large constituencies, there is a very strong argument for a delegate structure on the grounds of fair and democratic representation. All member meetings (AMMs) favour those who live close to the meeting venue, or who own cars and can afford the petrol to get to meetings - public transport may not exist at all or not in the evenings. Generally, delegates are much more committed to getting to General Committee (GC) meetings, and they represent their local members who can't/don't want to travel half an hour or more to these CLP meeting - especially in winter. Delegates can also arrange to car share with regularity - as they have committed to attending GCs when being elected as delegates.
ReplyDeleteBranches are AMMs in their own right. Develop branches! Educate members to hold their GC delegates accountable - in local branches which people find easy to attend and hard to dodge the tricky questions. Simultaneously, keep GC meetings open to all members to attend and speak, although only delegates can vote, which doesn't feel too different from AMMs. The 2018 rule change ensuring that CLP Executive Committees are accountable to GC meetings also tips the balance back in favour of effective representative democracy through a delegate structure - so GCs rather than AMMs. A flourishing representative democracy also doesn't preclude holding all-member political education or campaigning events.