Are you an inny or an outie?
Labour members must reject navel-gazing and start looking out to the country they want to govern.
This newsletter is very much becoming a “do as I say, not as I do” beast. A great deal of what I say here is about internal structures and arguments within the Labour Party. While I also argue that we should all be spending a lot less time looking inwards at the Labour Party (which I accept makes me somewhat of a hypocrite). I think my arguments are necessary to help create a party that is fit to talk with the country at large. I hope that they play a small role in convincing people that the party needs fundamental change in how it is managed at every level. I look forward to talking about the Labour Party less in this space and the country more. But for a party fit to do that, for now, I’m going to write about one single proposed rule change, and what a disaster I believe it would be for the party - including those who currently support it.
For many years I have been of the vocal opinion that the Labour Party’s NEC should only be elected at the start of a Parliamentary term and/or leadership tenure rather than every other year. In fact, I was quite disappointed when the institutional soft left spent their energy campaigning to change the voting system to STV without also trying to change the terms at the same time.
Overall, STV is probably delivering a more representative NEC so that’s good. My problem, in this instance, isn’t with the NEC's makeup or behaviour as a body. It’s the amount of time and energy spent by party members - in particular some of the strongest campaigners on all sides - on internal elections and, therefore, internal conversations. As the Wonderstuff almost put it: they’re talking to themselves again and I’m talking to the wall.
The NEC is just one nationally elected body within the party. There is also the Conference Arrangements Committee (which sounds like they hang streamers in a school gym, but actually have a great deal of power and control over what goes to the conference floor in terms of motions), The National Policy Forum (who might as well hang streamers for all the actual input into any manifesto they have), the National Constitutional Committee (who oversee disciplinary cases and used to be boring and uncontested but - for obvious reasons - have been less so in recent years). There are also a swath of regional and local positions elected - usually annually, definitely far too often. All of which leads to Labour looking inwards and fighting among ourselves for powerful positions in an increasingly powerless party.
I’ve talked at some length here about internal Labour Party elections. This is not actually what this post is about. But I do think it sets out quite starkly the context of a terminally inward looking party. Each of these bodies that are elected by the membership have to report to the party’s annual conference as the sovereign body of the party. There is currently being considered a constitutional amendment - which, if accepted as a valid proposal, will be put to this year’s conference for delegates to vote on. This would make the PLP answerable to conference in a vague way on matters of passing policy and in a more pointed way on matters of discipline in particular, it would allow conference delegates to overturn disciplinary decisions made by the leadership.
This would be a complete and total disaster. It would be a disaster for the PLP and for the party as a whole. And in that whole I include those who are currently pushing for this change for factional reasons.
This has largely come about because Keir Starmer withdrew the whip from Jeremy Corbyn while the NEC chose to reinstate his membership. I have no interest in relitigating the rights and wrongs of this individual case. However, any change to a political party’s constitution should not be done based on the strength of feeling around one individual. Systems are - or at least should be - put in place to create, affirm and guide best practice, not to answer individual questions. Nor should any rule change be applicable retroactively. So even were this to pass, it is unlikely that it will apply to Corbyn, whose PLP membership was withdrawn under the current rules.
There are many reasons why I think this is a terrible idea.
First and foremost, the PLP do not answer to the Labour Party membership - they answer to the electorate. If they have done something considered egregious enough that the whip should be withdrawn, it is in showing respect to the electorate that this decision is made. It is the first step in righting a way we have wronged this MPs constituents by putting forward a sub-standard candidate. There need to be higher and more independent levels of scrutiny for these wrong doings, but it is not for party members to haggle over this - in fact, nothing could be less independent.
The PLP are elected to serve the people - all the people - of their constituencies. They are not elected as mere delegates, there to do as they are ordered by a sub-section of the party (conference is far from representative of the membership never mind the country). They are there to examine policy and legislation in depth and, as a result, to strengthen or reject it. They will have differences of expertise and opinion. Most times, these will be reconciled. Sometimes they will not and an MP will - with a heavy heart - vote against the Party whip. No one understands this better than Jeremy Corbyn. He spent many years during the Labour government voting against the whip because he had genuine policy differences with those who were then in charge of his party. It was his right as a backbencher to do so and his answerability to the party came only in the form of lack of promotion from the backbenches during that time.
I am supporting the Labour Women’s Network motion to ensure that sexual harassment complaints be overseen from start to finish by an independent body. Far too often these complaints have become mired in factionalism with people on all sides looking the other way when it is one of their own who is accused or not following the rules when it is someone from the ‘other side’. This is a recipe for a disfunctional and toxic place for women. It leads to pressure to keep quiet, highly distressing leaks of deeply personal accounts of harassment and abuse and a curtailing of the right, ambitions and futures of the victims - often with a corollary affect of increased factional support for the accused.
If such disciplinary cases were to lead to the withdrawal of the whip, were this motion passed, they would then be subject to being relitigated on the conference floor. Imagine being a woman put through that. Imagine the chilling effect that would have on people even bringing complaints in the first place. Imagine the torture of comrade after comrade dismissing your abuse from the platform of your party conference in the name of factional wrangling.
And if you think I’m being hyperbolic about the effect this could have, look at the SWP and the Comrade Delta case. (The same SWP, who far too many of our MPs are willing to share a platform with to this day.)
So far I have outlined the obvious, natural justice failures of this idea. But for some, their commitment to factionalism comes first. At the moment, this idea is being pushed by the Corbynite wing of Labour as a way of reinstoring the whip to their fallen leader. But here is my Cassandra like warning to them: You will not like this power if used against you.
Factions have a tendency to be incredibly short termist when considering this kind of rule change. They push for things they believe will further embed their power while they are in charge, without a full understanding that the draconian powers they wish to employ against their internal opponents can and will be used against them when the wheel has turned and they are no longer in charge and no longer have the numbers. And this is inevitable. The political pendulum always swings.
So instead of supporting a rule change to help you address a very short term consideration, all about one bloke (likely to retire at the next election anyway - whip or not) consider how it might feel if the boot were on the other foot. If a rule is established for factional purposes it can and will be used for factional purposes. it just won’t necessarily be your faction that benefits.
I started this very long screeed by talking about why we should have fewer internal elections instead of looking outwards to the country. I strongly believe that this rule change would make that considerably worse. Imagine the energy that will be put in from all sides in every CLP in the country to elect the ‘right’ delegates to conference based solely on how they might vote on these issues of discipline. Imagine the incentives for MPs to get involved in the organisation of such internal politicking. Imagine the time we will waste once again talking to ourselves about ourselves and failing to talk to the country.
Every motion like this is a further nail in the coffin of Labour’s credibility as a party that could adequately go into government. Every motion like this is further proof of our disdain for the things the electorate truly care about. Every motion like this makes it clearer that far too many people are interested only in power in the party and not in the country.
Every motion likes this brings the Labour Party closer to a hollowed out death. Unless we stop looking inwards at our navels and start looking outward to the country, this will be the fate we deserve.
What I’ve been up to
I have had the most amazing week professionally. I have been offered and accepted a fantastic part time job that I am really excited about while at the same time confirming a big piece of contract work doing PR for a project I am really passionate about.
In the meantime, I bizarrely had my new washing machine paid for by a group of strangers and celebrities. I’ve written this up for the Idependent so will post the link next week.
The play continues to thrive. The words are now all very much in place, and we are continuing to write songs. Yesterday, my fabulous Musical Director Jordan Brown and I laid down the basics of a Johnny Cash inspired song. Tickets will be on sale very soon so expect me to be pushing those heavily!
Jon Cruddas MP (Dagenham and Rainham) joined me at an online event hosted by the Fabian Society to talk about his new book, UBI & automation and the future of the Labour Party.
On Tuesday I edited Left Foot Forward. There I wrote news stories about increased concern about racist attacks against the East and South East Asian community and the finding against Tory MP Rob Roberts on sexual harassment. I also wrote the daily email.
Finally, I interviewed stand up and musical theatre star Sooz Kempner about her career and latest project, The Ballad of Anne and Mary.
Reading List
This piece - on the anti-feminist backlash among young men is fascinating and terrifying. This struck me in particular: “young people now were found to be more progressive than previous generations in the ways we stereotypically understand the cohort. They are widely pro-immigration, multiculturalism and are supportive of all sexuality and gender identities. “But it was distinctly feminism,” Carter says. “It’s an ideology that boys are pushing back against, in the midst of changing social norms.”
Funny how it’s always women who get the pushback isn’t it? I wonder if any of those who constantly tell us the next generation will usher in a progressive era have thoughts on why this is?
Questions, comments and arguments are very welcome. Insults will get you summarily blocked on every platform that no longer hosts Donald Trump. I’m at emmaburnell@gmail.com or on Twitter (far too often) at @EmmaBurnell_.
Every word of this is absolutely spot on. Great stuff.