Robert Philpot
by Robert Philpot
Labour’s history of special conferences is not an entirely happy one. While the conference which formed the Labour representation committee in 1900 was one such – triggered by Thomas R Steels, a member of the Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants, proposing in his union branch that the Trades Union Congress call a special conference to bring together all left-wing organisations and form them into a single body that would sponsor parliamentary candidates – more recent special conferences have had mixed results.
In January 1981, the Wembley special conference triggered the formation of the Social Democratic party – a schism which helped split the centre-left vote, guarantee Margaret Thatcher re-election in 1983 and inflict such a heavy blow on Labour that it took another 16 years before it was able to form a government. By contrast, the special conference of April 1995 which approved the new clause IV marked a turning point in Labour’s path to power in 1997, helping demonstrate to sceptical voters that the party was truly changing under Tony Blair’s leadership.
Ed Miliband’s decision to call a special conference next spring to debate and approve changes to the party’s relationship with the trade unions is thus a gamble, but one well worth taking. In the wake of the furore over the selection of the party’s candidate in Falkirk, Miliband announced both some very specific changes – principally, his desire that all members of affiliates formally opt in to membership of the party – and a wider aspiration to end the kind of “machine politics” which has historically done such damage to Labour’s standing. Over the next few months, through the review the Labour leader announced under former general secretary Ray Collins, and the debate around the country that Harriet Harman and Phil Wilson will lead, the party will have the opportunity to debate both the implications of Miliband’s changes and the realisation of that wider aspiration.
As we argued in March, Labour’s aim should be to “mend, not end” the union link. This is not a fight about whether Labour retains its historic link with the unions; instead it is about how the link can be reformed and strengthened. The party is immeasurably stronger because of its relationship with the unions. The unions currently hold 50 percent of the vote on the conference floor, with 50 percent in the hands of CLPs. Instead, the union and CLP share should fall to one-third with parliamentarians and councillors taking the final third. Finally, the electoral college which elects Labour’s leader should be scrapped. In its place, the party should adopt one member one vote, with MPs shortlisting the candidates.
Miliband is right to want a primary to pick Labour’s 2016 mayoral candidate in London and to suggest that primaries open to all Labour supporters might also be appropriate for parliamentary selections where CLP membership is so low as to be unrepresentative of the local community. He should go further and allow any CLP to experiment with a primary if it chooses, with unions and local party branches retaining the right to nominate candidates.
Miliband’s plans and commitment to consign machine politics to the history books will face fierce resistance from some quarters. In order to overcome that, Labour’s leader should call a ballot of all party members on the final package of reforms. It is one we are confident he would win handsomely. THE GUARDIAN
by Robert Philpot
Labour’s history of special conferences is not an entirely happy one. While the conference which formed the Labour representation committee in 1900 was one such – triggered by Thomas R Steels, a member of the Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants, proposing in his union branch that the Trades Union Congress call a special conference to bring together all left-wing organisations and form them into a single body that would sponsor parliamentary candidates – more recent special conferences have had mixed results.
In January 1981, the Wembley special conference triggered the formation of the Social Democratic party – a schism which helped split the centre-left vote, guarantee Margaret Thatcher re-election in 1983 and inflict such a heavy blow on Labour that it took another 16 years before it was able to form a government. By contrast, the special conference of April 1995 which approved the new clause IV marked a turning point in Labour’s path to power in 1997, helping demonstrate to sceptical voters that the party was truly changing under Tony Blair’s leadership.
Ed Miliband’s decision to call a special conference next spring to debate and approve changes to the party’s relationship with the trade unions is thus a gamble, but one well worth taking. In the wake of the furore over the selection of the party’s candidate in Falkirk, Miliband announced both some very specific changes – principally, his desire that all members of affiliates formally opt in to membership of the party – and a wider aspiration to end the kind of “machine politics” which has historically done such damage to Labour’s standing. Over the next few months, through the review the Labour leader announced under former general secretary Ray Collins, and the debate around the country that Harriet Harman and Phil Wilson will lead, the party will have the opportunity to debate both the implications of Miliband’s changes and the realisation of that wider aspiration.
As we argued in March, Labour’s aim should be to “mend, not end” the union link. This is not a fight about whether Labour retains its historic link with the unions; instead it is about how the link can be reformed and strengthened. The party is immeasurably stronger because of its relationship with the unions. The unions currently hold 50 percent of the vote on the conference floor, with 50 percent in the hands of CLPs. Instead, the union and CLP share should fall to one-third with parliamentarians and councillors taking the final third. Finally, the electoral college which elects Labour’s leader should be scrapped. In its place, the party should adopt one member one vote, with MPs shortlisting the candidates.
Miliband is right to want a primary to pick Labour’s 2016 mayoral candidate in London and to suggest that primaries open to all Labour supporters might also be appropriate for parliamentary selections where CLP membership is so low as to be unrepresentative of the local community. He should go further and allow any CLP to experiment with a primary if it chooses, with unions and local party branches retaining the right to nominate candidates.
Miliband’s plans and commitment to consign machine politics to the history books will face fierce resistance from some quarters. In order to overcome that, Labour’s leader should call a ballot of all party members on the final package of reforms. It is one we are confident he would win handsomely. THE GUARDIAN
