Refounding Labour – New Rules: an example

November 7, 2011 By Leave a Comment

This is how the new rules could apply to the Westminster parliamentary constituency of Greenwich and Woolwich. This paper has been circulated to branches for consultation.

A new rule book was agreed at 2011 Annual Conference. While our Constituency Labour Party (CLP) objected, on the grounds that most of the changes had not been subject at all to consultation, and that we had just a few days’ notice, nevertheless they were approved and must be implemented. Key decisions for the CLP are:

Annual Meeting (AGM) Dates – under the new rules this should be held in or after May. Branch AGMs are not set down by the rules (January is deleted) but advice is they should be after elections. Currently, we have the Branch AGMs in early-mid January and the CLP AGM at the end of February. We could:

  1. Hold Branch AGMs and CLP AGMs all in May
  2. Hold Branch AGMs in May and the CLP AGM in June
  3. Hold both the Branch and CLP AGMs in June

Delegate or General Meetings – Currently, we have a delegate General Committee (with delegates from Branches and affiliated organisations but we open all GCs to all members and have made a number of them all-member meetings with invites to everyone. Though any voting is by delegates only, the one exception being when we did our leadership and National Executive nominations. Two options:

  1. We can keep the current delegate structures allowing a fair representation across all branches and affiliates, but opening meetings for wider participation and have a number of all-member meetings
  2. We could have General Meetings only, with no delegates. The full membership would then elect the Officers and executive as well as take decisions on resolutions. Thus no delegates would be elected, and any member could attend, vote and stand. Members would be able to attend and vote at both their Branch and constituency meeting; it may therefore blur their distinctive roles.

Officers – The CLP currently has 8 Executive officers. The new rules provide for a base of just 5 with a number of co-ordinators (functional officers) though there is the option to have more Executive Officers if we choose.

  1. Have just 5 Executive officers (Chair, Vice Chair Membership; Vice Chair Campaigns; Secretary and Treasurer of which at least two must be women
  2. Have 6 Executive Officers (above 5 plus Equalities Officer) of which three would be women. The Equalities Officer would co-ordinate the roles currently carried out by Ethnic Minorities Officer, Women’s officer, Youth & Student officer and Disabilities officer)
  3. Retain current 8 Exec Officers with at least 4 women. This would need approval

Co-ordinators – we need to refresh the functional officer roles as Co-ordinators. This may mean we want to rationalise the roles and rather than having job shares to have teams.

 

Local Campaign Forum (LCF) – The new rules replace the Local Government Committee with a re-focussed Local Campaign Forum for co-ordinating council elections, selections and liaison with the Labour Group. The CLPs in Greenwich will need to collectively determine their preferred model but in general it will meet less frequently and be much slimmer (currently 65 members altogether). The Management and Executive Committees can be replaced by a single unitary body. Options include:

  1. A unitary LCF of 10 Party delegates (4 G&W CLP), 1 Co-op plus Group Leader and Deputy. This could be supplemented by a Borough Conference open to all Labour councillors and either all members or all CLP GC delegates which would be at least annual but possibly more frequently to help develop policy and policy commissions which would draw from the wider membership and be co-chaired by Party and group co-ordinators.
  2. A unitary LCF of 17 Party delegates (7 G&W CLP), 2 Co-op plus leadership. Again, this could be supplemented by a borough Conference and policy commissions
  3. A Management Committee of 39 Party delegates (16 G&W which could be 2 per BLP plus Chair and Sec); 4 Co-op and Group leadership. This would need a separate Executive.
  4. A Management Committee broadly as currently of 55 Party delegates (22 G&W CLP) plus 5 Co-op and group leadership. Again, a separate Executive.

 

Filed Under: Conference 2011, Constituencies, News, Refounding Labour

Turning the Boundary tables

August 5, 2011 By 4 Comments

LDN and Labour members will need little introduction to the current review of parliamentary Boundaries that will reduce the House of Commons to an arbitrary 600 seats and impose a straitjacket of constituencies between 72810 and 80473 electors. It may seem a long way off, but in 5 weeks time the provisional recommendations will be published and we will be plunged into the deep end. Of course, it is an entirely unnecessary review (we had new constituencies introduced in the 2010 general election) and is driven by a (rather mistaken) Conservative belief that the current map is biased to Labour.

Actually, the two main factors behind Labour’s slightly better representation (MPs per vote) is that the Labour vote is more concentrated (and thus efficient) and that turnout in Labour-leaning areas is lower. The actual boundaries are, at best, a marginal factor. So, while bad for democracy, redistribution will not necessarily be bad for Labour per se.

All very interesting, but what has this got to do Labour Democracy. Well, quite a bit. If we are to maximise our prospects of achieving the best possible results from this review – we need to ensure that we have a clear strategy guided by clear and agreed principles with our preferred options in each region (and sub-region as relevant) agreed by a democratic consensus process.

It is our CLPs that must be in the driving seat and the most important criteria mist be maximising the number of winnable Labour seats needed to form a Labour government. Obviously, that depends on also having an option that stands up to the statutory criteria and as far as possible (and this will be much more difficult) reflects local ties and communities.

With such sweeping changes likely in most areas, it is vital that the whole party feels part of this strategy and agrees the principles. We need to create marginal seats we can win, avoid building up Labour fortresses where possible, and in the game of musical chairs – make sure that more Tory and Lib Dem chairs get taken out.

This does mean local parties holding sway, seeing the best for the party overall and knowing what works on the ground – and not leaving the Labour position to the narrow interests of sitting MPs wanting to protect or enhance their majorities. We have to avoid schemes that look good just because a Labour MP is standing down anyway (so their constituency can conveniently be abolished) and decisions based on personalities – our schemes (or support of the provisional recommendations) must be based on Labour’s best overall position; what makes most sense in terms of the criteria and what is capable of winning the widest support from voters and local non-party groups. And they must be transparent – and reached by party consensus, not imposed.

As independent analysis has shown, the review need not be the electoral disaster that some have predicted and the Tories’ wanted. But this does mean the party rallying, in a very democratic fashion, and reaching out and campaigning in the wider community for constituencies that best reflect local identities.

Filed Under: News Tagged With:

Whither our LGCs?

July 18, 2011 By 5 Comments

Rumour has it that the NEC is considering abandoning the Local Government Committee and handing over local policy formulation to Labour Groups!

A fig-leaf of a local co-ordinating forum would take on the role of panel formulation, candidate selection supervision and election oversight.

 This was not a specific issue flagged up in the Refounding Labour consultation and has come rather left-field at the instigation apparently of the LGA Labour Group.

 Our Local Government Committees, previously called County, District or Borough Parties are charged with holding the Labour Groups on those councils to account and ensuring collaboration between the party and Labour Group.  They are just as vital in the many areas where we are devoid of Labour councillors or have a sole or just a handful of councillors who need and appreciate support.

 Now, I am not going to the barricades over preserving LGCs; there are arguments for smaller co-ordinating forums in many areas.  But there are two vital principles at stake here:

 1)      Deliberative policy making and transparency – it is far too early to rush a change through before there has been a wide debate in the Party on whether this is a desirable move and how an alternative might work.  There should be some assessment of how effective LGCs are in fulfilling their functions and the wider objectives of the party before imposing into ill-thought out changes.  And we must ensure that any change has genuinely wide and transparent support from throughout the party – this is not clear as it was not a specific question and responses to Refounding Labour have yet to be published.

2)      Accountability – it was David Blunkett who established the current rules of groups and LGCs to focus on collaboration and accountability on policy – in many ways a fore-runner to Partnership in Power.  At its best, this can work very well with open and deliberative policy making including members and councillors at local level leading to a high quality manifesto with significant consensus – backed up by an ongoing policy dialogues on contemporary issues.  Under the proposals, we could go back to pre-Blunkett days where the Group and the Party can be locked in a confrontational, adversarial relationship without any real accountability.

 So there is a case for some reform or allowing some flexibility but just abolishing LGCs is not the way forward.  In a county council area, and many of the counties only have a few Labour councillors, an LGC is a tremendous way to bring the CLPs together with the few councillors to support their opposition and to inform local parties about county issues and to help co-ordinate county wide campaigns.  In Labour areas, it brings the party and group together and can provide a reality check for councillors who can (occasionally) become cocooned in the Town/City /County Hall or sometimes have not considered wider issues or implications.

 Of course, the LGC can lead to duplication sometimes, there can be too many meetings and bureaucracy, and can divert us rather than support campaigning.  But, there are other ways of overcoming these challenges.  Let us be very careful before we throw out the baby with the bathwater – and let’s have a democratic debate before any changes.

 David L Gardner, Vice Chair, Labour Democratic Network

Filed Under: Blog Tagged With: , ,