Involvement? Engagement? The party just doesn’t get it

By Tim Swift

I am sure that Johanna Baxter genuinely wants to do all she can to enourage openness and consultation through the Refounding Labour process. And as someone who has no problems in explicitly supporting the strengths and achievements of New Labour, I have to feel nervous at finding myself on the same side as Peter Kenyon. But the email we all received at the weekend from Ray Collins, together with Johanna’s explanation of where we are in the process, leaves me in a state of some despair about the ability of the Labour Party to genuinely improve the imvolvement of members in this critical process.

There is a massive leap between the kind of open-ended, free-form consultation exercise that started Refounding Labour, and the hard-edged and specific proposals that our representatives seem likely to be asked to vote on in just a few short days.

Take, for example, the proposal to abolish Local Government Committees and replace them with – what? Local Campaign Forums with some indeterminate role and powers? The justification for this is that “views were expressed” about the bureaucracy and ineffectiveness of LGCs – including by the LGA Labour group, although having seen their submission it’s not as clear cut as I had been told.

But that process simply establishes as issue of concern. It is not sufficient to demonstrate the overall strength of feeling about this, or show us what the balance of views are, or the details of what members think are the important elements to be kept. There can’t be – that’s the nature of this kind of open dialogue. And of course, it’s also the nature that calls for change are more likely to be made than comments defending the status quo.

An open dialogue process can only be the first stage in finding and understanding members views. A rational approach would, at the end of the open process, produce a more detailed set of specific proposals that encapsulate the choices and priorities expressed, and then use these as the basis for a more formal consultation and decision making process.

This is not rocket science. It’s the kind of structured approach to consultative decision making that those of who work in local government, serve as councillors, or are active in voluntary and community groups, probably adopt almost as a matter of instinct. So why do we find it so hard to get it right in the party?

This is where I part company from Peter Kenyon, who sees the problems only in terms of the central control and authoritarian tendencies that he associates with a particular faction in the party. He may be right. But as the current approach so clearly goes against the stated intent of almost everyone concerned with the process, I wonder if there are more fundamental issues in our structure at play?

How much, for example, of the time in discussions and negotiations over the summer has been determined by the need to ensure union backing and support for the proposals to be brought forward? And how far does the need to put together deals that will stick mitigate against the ability to hold the more genuinely inclusive process I’m suggesting above?

After all, if we are criticising the barriers to greater member involvement, we need to assess honestly how this can be compatible with the way union influence is currently exercised? No doubt the unions will be expressing a view about the proposals that are emerging, and we know that without their block votes, the changes cannot be passed. How will Unite, or Unison, or the GMB, be consulting their levy-paying members about their views on Refounding Labour?

If we are to genuinely rethink our structure to give greater involvement to our members, we have a long, long way to go.