If we should stop Labour Party meetings why should we not close schools and stop large public gatherings?

I am not entirely clear on the definition of a pandemic – but once an infectious agent has led to advice to call off all Labour Party meetings you know things have got serious. As the Chair of a Constituency Labour Party (CLP) who will now be deprived - even if only temporarily – of the sheer unalloyed joy of chairing meetings, this has obviously got me thinking.

The first thing I think is that the robust advice issued by the General Secretary of the Labour Party stands in stark contrast to the failure of Her Majesty’s Opposition seriously to hold to account our Government over their inadequate response to the current public health crisis (to be clear, asking Johnson to explain more clearly why he wants to let old people die too soon does not amount to holding him to account).

If we think that the best way to protect the health and safety of Labour Party members (and to make a positive contribution to the health of the wider community) is to stop our members from gathering together (even in relatively small numbers) then why hold back from attacking the Government for their failure to act to stop mass gatherings, or to close schools (particularly given the compelling evidence that this would be effective)?

The second thing I think is that, if there are other Party members who feel, as I do, that Labour should be more vigorous in its opposition to the Government over its lackadaisical attitude to thousands of untimely deaths, the decision to suspend all Party meetings prevents us from finding a democratic way to give voice to that opinion within the Party’s structures. In decades of activity in our movement I have never been reassured by any circumstances which limit the ability of the rank and file to criticise and hold to account the leadership and the paid officials – and I am reassured least of all in current circumstances.

This leads me to the third thing I think, which is that the definition of a “General Meeting” in Chapter Seven of the Labour Party Rule Book does not in fact specify that a meeting must take place in a single geographical location. It is (at least) arguable that the Rules permit us to arrange meetings over the internet (using the technologies that are now available to enable this). The General Secretary’s advice that we stop meeting, and stop campaigning, is plainly (given its context) advice that we should stop meeting in person and stop campaigning on the doorstep and in the streets.

No one thinks we should stop campaigning online (although there would always be much to be said for greater restraint on Facebook and Twitter) as you cannot catch COVID 19 online. Nor is there any reason why Labour Party members should cease communicating electronically – from which it follows that, if we can organise electronic meetings in a way that guarantees the democratic rights of Party members (since nothing in the Labour Party Rule Book precludes electronic meetings) we can, in fact, meet (online).

We can then express (if we wish) the opinion that our Party, in Parliament, should be holding Johnson’s Government to account more effectively and – where we hold any power in devolved administrations or local government should be promoting more effective preventative measures than those being advocated by our Government of the privileged by the privileged for the privileged.