The roots of a re-born party

By Peter Thomson

Recently, I spent the evening mulling over some of Ralph Baldwin’s thoughts in his comments beneath this post, using my discipline as a quality assurance consultant and auditor as a start point for considering a re-born Labour Party.

Yesterday, Ralph put his more considered ideas out in a post on LabourList and I would now like to add to the debate that is needed if Westminster wishes to re-engage with the UK voter. For Labour, also read Tory, Lib Dem, UKIP, etc.

My aim is to make the lead page of any manifesto or party rule book free of jargon, either political or management, so that anyone knows what it is a re-born Labour Party would stand for in the 21st Century.

The first question is just how many ordinary members have actually read Labour rules and standing orders from cover to cover – I took one look and decided the best use for any such book was to hold doors open.

The start point for any quality scheme is to establish the aim, the objectives and the how it will happen, so I am putting my ideas (and my ideas alone) of how I would like Labour to move to be a forward thinking and responsive political unit and by doing so I hope to give an example of an approach that will give the PLP a chance to rectify the growing gap and in increasing dysfunctional relationship between them, the CLPs and the membership at large.

The principle is simple: if Labour can not agree a common political position; a simple code of behaviour and stance that best fits its needs for the 21st Century, then the party is destined to fail as schism rips it apart.

So I am going to play “write a new front page”, stating what I think Labour should stand for and what it should offer its members and the voters at large. Readers should remember I have been, though am not currently, a Labour voter.

Aims:

* To ensure that the party political focus remains on creating social stability, harmony and opportunity for all with its focus on the poorest in UK society.

* To ensure the party remains a party of its members, and not vested interests.

* To ensure all members act in an honest and open manner

Objectives:

* To use OECD indices to prioritise policies to help create the opportunity for social mobility by those most at risk or dependent on the state.

* To create a party structure that is responsive and open to the membership’s ideas and concerns.

* To re-instate conference as an arena for debate and not stage management by a particular party faction.

* To make relevant the party’s claim to be a party of one member, one vote.

* To govern or oppose in a manner which best serves the voters of the UK in the long term.

Methodology: (I need a better word but can’t think of one)

* All actions and activities taken by members will be governed by the current Labour Party rules, standing orders and any future revisions or amendments to these agreed by conference on a one member one vote basis.

* Party funding arrangements will no longer be a reason for any block group gaining excessive influence over the party.

* All members will apply due diligence when applying for expenses from the party or the public purse, seeking only such expenses that are allowed and have been actually incurred.

* The NEC’s function will ensure that the party remains focused on its aims and objectives, act as a conduit between the membership and the PLP to ensure the membership view is heard, and act as the final arbiter in any disciplinary action, resolution of complaint or other action that brings the party into disrepute.

In effect I am saying that the MPs or Councillors have no greater wisdom or experience than any other party member; that matters to do with policy should not have the ascendancy over conference they hold at present; and that any future revision needs to redress this balance and return influence and the final say to conference.

This will also mean that instead of the current presidential / “we know best” style of the current party leadership, members will once again have to come to conference and cogently argue their point and its benefit. It would be hoped that this approach will reduce the number of own goals that the Presidential style of cabinet of both Blair and Brown have inflicted on the party.

Ultimately successful leadership is about listening and either convincing others of your point of view, and possibly even accepting openly and honestly someone else’s idea or method is more effective – whether you be the chair of a CLP, an MP or even the Prime Minister.