A Labour Party special conference was held last
weekend to debate reforms to the party's structure (Sparrow, 2014). The new measures,
backed by party leader Mr Ed Miliband and presented in the The Collins Review released in February, were passed by a large majority of the party membership.
The special conference proved to be a coordinated display. Through the use of colours, symbols and policies, the Labour Party sought to herald the success of the most recent in a long series of attempts to transform itself. Under the banner 'One Nation', an idea born out of Labour's conservative 'Blue Labour' faction, the conference was to herald the latest stage in a transformation from a party representing the interest of the workers into a democratic party drawing upon much more general support.
Symbolic of its intention to change its image away from that of the party of the unionised masses, was the distinct absence of the party's traditional colour of red. The stage and set were instead dominated by the colour blue, a colour more usually in Britain associated with conservatism.
Symbolic of its intention to change its image away from that of the party of the unionised masses, was the distinct absence of the party's traditional colour of red. The stage and set were instead dominated by the colour blue, a colour more usually in Britain associated with conservatism.
That
colour itself was a poignant statement on Labour's political direction.
Shortly following the 2010 UK general election the party saw the
emergence of Blue Labour as a new faction. While it at first seemed to quietly disappear after its policies were criticised for
their conservatism, it instead seems to have evolved into the 'One
Nation' movement.
Through the idea of 'One Nation', Labour's parliamentary party sees the potential for greater public support and a broader appeal. To further that aim, this special conference was called to vote on rearranging the relationship between the trade unions and the party along the lines of 'one member one vote' (BBC, 2014).
The trade unions, who were deeply involved in the party's founding, have, since the beginning, held considerable influence over party decisions. That influence came from the nature of the Labour Party's membership. Rather than joining the party directly, many of Labour's members were simply automatically affiliated to the party through their trade union. As such, influence over the politics of the party membership belonged far more to the unions than to the parliamentary party.
Through the idea of 'One Nation', Labour's parliamentary party sees the potential for greater public support and a broader appeal. To further that aim, this special conference was called to vote on rearranging the relationship between the trade unions and the party along the lines of 'one member one vote' (BBC, 2014).
The trade unions, who were deeply involved in the party's founding, have, since the beginning, held considerable influence over party decisions. That influence came from the nature of the Labour Party's membership. Rather than joining the party directly, many of Labour's members were simply automatically affiliated to the party through their trade union. As such, influence over the politics of the party membership belonged far more to the unions than to the parliamentary party.
Last weekend's vote aimed to redress that balance. In the name of clarity of political
decision-making and transparency of funding and influence, the party
sought to bring its membership out from under the (what might be seen as
overshadowing) influence of the trade unions and into
the party mainstream as individual members. But above all it meant centralising the running of the party under a single elected leadership.
The party leader Mr Miliband has become closely associated with the One Nation faction and its policies, and the One Nation brand made a very prominent appearance at the conference, where it took centre stage surrounded by a blue Union Flag. That scene seemed to represent a victory by the
'modernising' parliamentary party over the trade unions in the struggle to secure central control over the
party membership.
Previously, internal party politics had been dominated by
deals, manoeuvres and compromises, all designed to buy the unions and
their members around on mass. Following the strikes of the 1980s and
the weakening of the unions at Mrs Thatcher's hands, the parliamentary
party became more bold. From Mr Neil Kinnock, through
Mr John Smith and his proteges Mr Tony Blair and Mr Gordon Brown, the
central body at the heart of party became more confident it its
pro-establishment proposals.
That body, the parliamentary party, then became more open in seeking to make private
market capitalism work for socialist ideals through taxation and
regulation. Gone completely was even the language of confrontation with capital, of socialist
struggle. It was replaced by the intent to try and use the capitalist model
for other ends, even expanding its involvement into everything from
healthcare to education.
All the while, this was done
with continued deference to the unions. However, the loss at the 2010
general election, and the derailing of the New Labour modernising project, seemed to
shake the party's confidence. Rivalries within the party; between the
the parliamentary party, the constituency based party organisations, and
the unions became an open struggle to decide the party's shape and
direction.
This latest vote constitutes a great
strengthening of the parliamentary party at the expense of the trade
unions, symptomatic and typical of the Labour Party's approach to
modernisation. It fits in well with the long term drift towards social
democracy and democratic politics over the trade unionism of the party's
heritage, and the socialism of many members at the local and individual
level; and with the long term drift towards establishing some sort of central authority to govern the whole party.
Immediately following the vote at the conference, major trade unions announced that they were reducing their financial contributions to Labour (BBC, 2014; Watt, 2014). However, Labour's use of the conference to seemingly try and rebrand itself suggests they will be little concerned with a further withdrawal by the unions. For Labour's parliamentary elite, weening itself off of its relationship with the unions was always going to mean accepting the loss of funding that they bring.
As Mr Miliband stood and addressed his party (New Statesman, 2014), backed by a wall of blue, the party's approach to its rebrand, the staging and the policies enacted at that conference, all gave the party more of a resemblance to an American political machine, than to the nearer neighbouring European social democrats. And maybe that's the point.
The party has used this occasion to once more confirm its drift towards being a party of democrats rather
than of socialists, of democrats rather than of trade unionists. One Labour, draped in blue, looks ready and willing to drop even its oldest partners for electoral success on the back of the broader support that being a party of democrats could offer them, just as they've dropped their colours.
==========
References:
==========
+ Andrew Sparrow's 'Politics Live Blog: Miliband wins vote on Labour party reforms with overwhelming majority'; in The Guardian; 1 March 2014.
+ Labour Party Announcement: 'Building a One Nation Labour Party: Special Conference 2014'; on labour.org.uk.
+ Ray Collins' 'Building a One Nation Labour Party: The Collins Review into
Labour Party Reform'; February 2014.
+ BBC's 'Unite union cuts Labour funding by £1.5m'; 5 March 2014.
+ Nicholas Watt's 'Unite union cuts Labour funding by £1.5m'; in The Guardian; 5 March 2014.
+ BBC's 'Labour approves union membership reforms'; 1 March 2014.
+ New Statesman's 'Ed Miliband's speech to Labour's Special Conference: full text'; 1 March 2014.
No comments:
Post a Comment