Moving away from apathy and towards a politically engaged Labour membership

The 2010 general election was the catalyst for a surge in Labour party membership. Many new members joined due to a strong ideological connection to the left, while some simply saw membership as two fingers to the coalition. Either way, there was a passion and anger among members that could have been harnessed. The majority though will never have experienced any personal contact with their CLP’s. Instead they receive emails, which are at best invitations to events, and at worst policy pronouncements that lack any opportunity for feedback. This style of communication is symptomatic of a hierarchical and bureaucratic party that alienates its members, rather than providing meaningful involvement.

The utility of an active membership is obvious. Among other things, members can work to improve community relations and spread the party’s message. Labour however is allowing its grass roots to shrink. The gap between the top and bottom of the party has grown as the middle ground becomes increasingly prevalent. As a result, the party has become more business like. To create policies that reflect the opinions of non-party members, efficient methods of contact are needed. As a consequence methods that are slower, but more engaging, are ignored. Despite this there have been attempts to empower members. The introduction of One Member One Vote (OMOV) was, in part, an attempt to increase the ordinary members sense of party ownership. It was believed that, by reducing the power of the unions and the far left in the party, members could begin to play a key role in decision-making. In reality though, OMOV has served to strengthen the parliamentary party. The restrictive nomination procedure, in which candidates need 12.5% of MP’s votes to progress, means that those with radical views are filtered out. This has resulted in party members having limited choice when it comes to voting. Direct democracy at the local level is better in this regard. There are no restrictive nomination procedures, as each ward decides on the candidates it wishes to nominate. However, if constituencies are failing to communicate with and mobilise their members then surely the result will not be representative of the local membership base.

The party must instead do more to build personal and political relationships with its members. It should commit to face-to-face meetings with members. In doing this, members could listen to each other and learn from others experiences. It should think hard about how to involve difficult to reach members, perhaps providing them with opportunities to gain skills, so that they are better able to articulate their concerns. Meetings should not be structured and led in such a way that they defer to the most powerful within the party. This could be achieved by giving newer members opportunities to become involved in planning meetings. These kinds of reforms go beyond the passive participation embedded within direct democracy. Instead of just asking members to vote, they would actively encourage deliberation by giving members an equal forum in which to share their experiences. This would not only help to convey the party as one that listens to and cares about its members, but also one that aids members in becoming more knowledgeable. Through this, Labour might begin to create a new wave of activists, whose desire to fight for equality, democracy and social justice stems from their interactions with the party.