The unelites have broken the rules of the Labour Party and shattered public trust in our great movement

By Ralph Baldwin

Elite is defined in the Oxford Dictionary as “a group of people regarded as the best in a particular society or organisation”. I have yet to find a term for the expression “a group of people who are wrongfully regarded as the best in a particular society or organisation”; therefore I use and will continue to use the original term “unelites”.

This week, with the release of the Kelly Report, many people have commented on expenses and the situation within the Labour Party in particular. Clearly, we are witnessing horrific levels of disrespect displayed by our “elite” Members of Parliament, in the face of their own corruption and their view that they were somehow working harder than other dedicated professionals. This, then, is a reminder to everyone of the Labour Party Rules, which have been broken and abused [my emphasis]:

“Conditions of Membership
6. To be and remain eligible for membership, each individual member must:

A. accept and conform to the constitution, programme, principles and policy of the party.

Clause IV

Aims and values.

2B. A just society, which judges its strength by the condition of the weak as much as the strong, provides security against fear, and justice at work; which nurtures families, promotes equality of opportunity, and delivers people from the tyranny of poverty, prejudice and the abuse of power.

2C. An open democracy, in which government is held to account by the people, decisions are taken as far as practicable by the communities they affect and where fundamental human rights are guaranteed.

5. On the basis of these principles, Labour seeks the trust of the people to govern.

Clause VIII

The National Executive Committee

B. win elections and maintain the support of voters.

C. maintain a healthy party at all levels, engaged in the community upholding the highest standards in public life.”

One party member stated to me when I raised this that he, too, occasionally broke the rules. However, who was citing the importance of rules during the expense crises and belittling the sprirt of the rules? For what purpose do we have rules at all? Are they just guidelines? Where do they begin and where do they end? If I was to (heaven forbid) return to my old army camp, pick up an SA80 and go somewhere where there are few witnesses and rob a bank, dispose of the evidence and get away with it, is that OK if I am legal and within the rules until, at least, I am caught?

Of course not.

The rules are there theoretically to protect our values so that we can co-exist as peacefully as possible.

I was a great fan of the New Labour project back in 1997-2002. After that, many things changed as I listened to Mr Blair taking the very opposite policy stance he took in 1997 on many issues, duplicating the Tories’ policies of 1997 in some cases.

In 2005, along with the majority of “middle England” I realised that Labour had moved away from the majority views of the country as they veered into the realms of the right, though as an activist I still supported them.

With the exposure this year of the expenses scandal, we now know the full extent of the transition: aside from that scandal, there have been civil rights infringements, liberties curtailed and the love affair with inept bankers. Theirs were big money-big egos that were not matched by performance or ability and many still are answerable to none. The result is an increasing disrespect for – and from – the electorate.

The departure from the Labour Party rules and what it is to be in the Labour Party, Old or New, have been, by some, replaced with an obsession with legislation and the interpretation of legislation as a means of pushing the boundaries as an inexperienced child does when learning the rules, to see what can be got away with.

People of middle and lower incomes hear these twisted manipulations and ask me: is an MP elite enough to rise above the rest and endure their own unemployment? It seems not: they blub and threaten to sue the Labour Party when they have to give up their allowances.

And the result? More trust shattered, more hopes destroyed and opportunities that were promised for the many quashed into the oblivion of political ignorance, blindness and institutionalisation for the few.

Political assistents, think tank researchers, sycophantic suck-ups of the PM and pals with a guaranteed trip to Parliament are reminiscent of the final days of Tory rule back in 1996 when Tory candidates secured their seats by heavy donations and similar arrangements. There is consequently too little practical experience entering Parliament; the majority sweeping in from the educational establishments into the Parliamentary establishments and relying on think-tanks and PR, without the first clue of how to relate to those who they will fail to properly represent. To these institutionalised elites, the electorate have become a nuisance; they cannot afford to speak and debate with the local people for fear of being exposed.

So now we look to our future. What precedent has been set? What people will hope to “represent” us and the Labour Party in the future? With which issues will they be concerned: PR or real life?

Many Labour MPs should re-read the Labour Party rules above: they may find some of their questions regarding “what it is to be on the Left” answered. With these simple sentences, they should realise the full extent of their failure.

Related posts:

1. Will constitutional reform restore our broken trust?
2. I don’t fully trust the government on public spending either
3. Impenetrable hierarchies and unknowable rules prevent the change we need
4. SureStart Millmead: a mutual model story for Labour’s great achievement
5. Mandelson “officially rules out” the leadership “for life”