Is the debate on party reform missing the point (again)?

The deadline for submissions to the Collins Review is less than two weeks away, the process – most likely to end in some form of complex compromise – is coming to a close. That’s no bad thing. There’s little to be gained here from one section of the party trampling over another just a year before an election. Compromise isn’t a dirty word.

But there’s been a lack of debate within the party about what party reform should actually look like. Many members have assumed that their input will be largely ignored, so haven’t engaged with the debate (perhaps they remember “Refounding Labour” – unfortunately I do). But that means the debate on party reform risks missing the point. Again.

So lets go back to first principles.

Ed Miliband is right to want to see a bigger Labour Party, engaged with more people. But before we start talking about getting more people (and more trade unionists) involved in the Labour Party, lets confront the reality that is staring us in the face. We don’t have enough members (enough crowing about how we’re the biggest party in Britain – we had twice as many members in 1997) and even those we do have aren’t anywhere near engaged enough. Many of our target seats have just a handful of dedicated activists and some of those same seats have membership numbers in the low triple digits.

It’s not good enough, because in 2015, having people on the ground is the only real advantage that Labour has. And because of generations of politicians paying only lip service to generations of activists, we could be about to squander that advantage.

Members are hugely important. Without wanting to be cliched, they’re the best resource that a party can accrue. Everyone joins the Labour Party for a reason – usually because they believe that they can change things in their local area or the country – some want to change the world. Indeed the best question you can ever ask a Labour Party member is “Why did you join the Labour Party?”. It reminds people of what brought them to the table in the first place, it reminds them what their passion is and it often makes people feel more inclined to get involved.

Yet at present we have a lack of involvement at even the most basic level. Too many are paper/direct debit members, which mean they aren’t “members” in any tangible sense, they’re regular small donors. They don’t canvass, campaign, take part in party democracy or (sometimes) even necessarily vote in elections with any regularity.

We need to completely rethink what membership, activism and involvement are if we’re serious about party reform. But unfortunately, I fear history suggests we’re not serious about party reform at all – and members don’t believe the party is really going to make any such changes either.

That’s largely because party members and activists feel like they’re been serially let down. Because whilst so many are happy to talk up members and membership when they’re trying to win a party election or selection they’re similarly quick to dismiss them once they’ve been lifted up on our shoulders.

And it’s not just about democracy (although Labour democracy is often abject – we don’t decide the policies that go into the manifesto, turnout in internal elections is poor, we elect MPs and have little way of holding them to account and we have no way of holding councillors to account between selections) it’s also about engagement. It’s not about “tracking a policy submission”, it’s feeling like you have a voice, and will be listened to when you have something to say.

Achieving that might mean smashing up a few shibboleths though – like outdated and off-putting party meetings. More often than not they’re poor, and out of touch – and they have no part in building a genuine political movement, only in terms of maintaining a political bureaucracy. And that’s exactly what that structure was created to do. But we’re currently trying to pilot a 21^st century “movement party” with the ageing architecture of an early 20^th century party. Weekday meetings that go on until late at night (whether there’s anything to discuss or not) combined with debates that go nowhere and have too little impact mean that when there are so many demands on people’s time, the inflexible party meeting too often ends up being the first thing to be dropped. Even those so dedicated to Labour that they’re members don’t think it’s worth their time.

So yes, there’s not enough of a direct relationship between trade union members and the party. Those who have managed campaigns will know how valuable trade unionists can be in running and manning election and community campaigns. Harnessing their dedication, experience and commitment is a worthy goal for the Labour Party. But at the same time, there aren’t enough Labour Party members involved in the Labour Party either. And whilst political expedience and a ticking clock drives the party inexorably towards a conclusion to the latest bout of party reform, wouldn’t it be nice if the party could tackle some of the glaring issues that face our party as an organisation.

Like the fact that the way it’s run isn’t working anymore – especially for members.