Do we really want to allow somebody to ‘do a Tea Party’ on Labour?

By Darrell Goodliffe

Ed Miliband seems to be staking an awful lot on giving registered supporters a vote in the affiliates section of the electoral college that elects our leader. Considering it’s an idea which according to the last LabourList survey on the issue commands a whopping 4.8% support among members this is probably not a sensible move. It takes a special talent to make something as profoundly undemocratic as the electoral college even less democratic but amazingly this proposal manages to achieve that.

One good reason not to like this idea is that if you happen to believe in one member, one equal vote, this reform moves that goal even further away from being achieved. Incidentally, OMOV polled 55.8% in the same survey. Another great leap backwards for Labour Party democracy then.

When people are considering this issue on Sunday, and when the NEC meets on Saturday, I think a pretty basic question needs to be asked. We should cut through all the ‘inclusive’ fluff and verbiage that Mr Miliband will no doubt come out with and ask; do we want to allow somebody to ‘do a Tea Party’ on the Labour Party? Do we want to hand real influence over to people whose commitment to Labour is only that they have signed a piece of paper to say they support us? Some will, others definitely will not. They will support another party (and seek to tactically influence ours) or support an outside movement that seeks to influence Labour. I have no problem with other – outside – groups seeking to influence the direction of Labour’s policy through argument, persuasion and campaigning for their cause. If we listen we might sometimes learn some things. However, I do have a problem with handing these people influence through giving them actual votes.

Proponents of this idea will insist that it keeps a political party more in touch with the grassroots. However, the American experience tells us something different. Here is a commentary on how the influence of the Tea Party is changing the ‘Grand Old Party’:

“Once-moderate lawmakers are shifting sharply right, fearing primary challenges more than Democratic opponents. And most GOP presidential contenders have positioned themselves to the right of party leaders, and even some House tea partyers, on the debt-ceiling issue.“

Is the Tea Party in touch with the majority of the American electorate? I sincerely doubt it is. During the recent budget crisis it was the Tea Party that lay behind House-Republican’s kamikaze run against the White House (polling consistently showed they, not the President got the blame). Despite all this, Ed Miliband and the leadership would have us believe this move is some kind of magic cure for all our ills. In reality, it isn’t and worse still, it is a system that is easily exploited by a highly determined and well organised but relatively small number of people who suddenly gain more influence than their numbers properly suggest they should have.

Influence, which is gained at the price of diluting the rights and status of hard-working and long-suffering party members. On Saturday, the NEC has an opportunity to stop this proposal being included in its motion on Refounding Labour. It should take that opportunity. If it doesn’t, the only democratic course of action is to vote against the NEC motion on Sunday and send both the NEC and the leadership go back to the drawing board.

If its inclusion is pushed it will be a sure sign that Refounding Labour does not represent the settled will of the party (not that it possibly could, given the unacceptably poor standard of ‘consultation’) and that it is just another stitch-up. The very least that could be done is this proposal could be taken out of the motion entirely to show good faith. However, I won’t hold my breath for that to happen. It’s a badly thought out gimmick which could ultimately, maybe even terminally, damage the political health of the Labour Party – you only need to glance accross the Atlantic Ocean to see how it may all sound nice, but it can go horribly wrong.