IT SEEMS pretty obvious why constitutional reform is in the air again: because the crucial decisions of the 12S1 LaoONT. Party conterence were supported by a majority of Labour Party members.
year democracy fight, we had a grossly undemocratic conference.
So we can agree that further reforms would be welcome. Where do we begin? Alex Kitson starts from the need to keep Labour Party union links.
the democracy campaign set out to secure accountabilitv. haven't yet got a leaderShip accountable membership. This, not a SuODUsCtl between CLPs and unions, 1s the root oi present bitterness.
There are three simple campaigns the T&GWU can back which would dramatically improve relations with 90 per cent of CuPs to throw our tae register; elect an NEC that support's policies; and let women nave real the If the T&GWU doesn't back these measures strongly suspect CLPs will treat the new proposal quite rignly as a crumb from the block vote table leaving real power exactly where it was before.
Where is the difficulty? I think Richard Crossman spelt it out in mis matroduc tion to Bagehot's English Constitution. Real power, he said, is shared between the PLP and the union leaders and safeguarded by the PLP's autonomy and the unaccountability of the block vote.
Effective reform must threfore transfer real power from the PLP or the union leaders to the base of both unions and CLPs. Kitson's idea does neither. Murky With this said, is there still a case for some other reform which would allocate power differently between CLPs and unions? Perhaps. For example, if the PLP can have 'sacred territory' which the concence Cant trude on, why shouldn't there guarantees of CLP's rights? shouldn't they have a veto, for example, over any constitutional changes affecting membership?
The register wouldn't have got past square one in such a situation.
It is however wrong, in my view, to think that changing the voting strengths of CLPs and unions will help.
If the problem is the small size of. the CLP vote, why did the left support an electoral college giving Der Cut l cue vole lo unt CLPs? Why not back the 'moderate centre' posal for 33-33-33 between ULUCLPs, unions and MPs, which would have given the CLPs the biggest say of all? We need a different relation between unions and CLPs, not a different carve-up of the same relationship.
will be put The first is that thè constituenwing than the unions.
This is widely-accepted but very dubious. First, if it were true, the right wing would have a very good case for stronger trade union control. They could claim the constituencies were unrepresentative.
After all, the point of winning the fight n the Labour Party if you Cal well at the pols! The strongest part of the lett's case is that it does represent trade union opiAlex Kitson Nor can we assume the CLPs will be to the left of the unions policy CYCl The CLPs were originally set un in the 1920s to counteract the influence of the Communist Party 1r The unions spearheadthe more radical measures in Labour's 1945 programme - particularl the T&GWU. If Goldin gets his way, we may well ind the right wing launown ottensiv through the constituen• cies. We should not play with ideas that any particular section of the party yoorer for ag than any other for time After all, look at the NEC.
The second argument, ward, is that the CLPs pr- which Kitson forhigher financial contribution. I also think this is very dangerous.
If the principle of votes for money is accepted, then the way is open for a dramatic increase in the already corrupt process of umons simply payıng Tol the number of votes they walt The NORT wing unions would just calculate what thev need to win a particular vote and pay up the requisite sum.
The third argument is that in some sense CLPs are more ana that their higher financial conus outon retects las.
There is a point to this argument. One of the Drincipal reasons that unions leaders : have been less in CLPD's spotlight than MPs is because CLP activists are more vigilant about what goes on in the Labour Party than rank and file trade unionists.
Yet this is what began Long not car on one campaign.
Why not along Broad by taking Labour Party issues more vigorously into the unions?
It's easily done: a simple circular from the T&G asking its branches to ensure they Take regular reports on the Labour Party, send delegates to GCs, and support T&G policy there. such tion to witch-hunts. Hosttion to witch-hunts. about a few T&G delegates at the next meeting of Spellars' nicentre! GC to defend Nigel Williamson?
And this shows where the argument individual members being more 'active' goes astray Trade unionists who attend trade union branch meetings, vote for GC delegates and mandate them, are just as active as individual party members and do te same. tiny and the same. draw a distinction between the two forms of activity? Is canvassing more deserving than strikes? Both are part of the foundations of the The contradiction lies in the different way ward acuivists and trade umon members have their votes counted at national level Individual members vote through their CLPs, and for that matter so do those made noose who send delegates to GC's. But trade unionists also cast an additional vote nationally which is in practice wield ed without consultation by their leaders, and controls Ine Party. solution is to seek ways in walterade UNIONISLS local level can play a more direct role trade unionists in Labour Party politics • such as factory branches and special conferences - and at the same ume make ine block volt accountable to the union rank and tle ov means of struggle to democratise the More radical measures are conceivable — such a transfer of a part of the block vote to local level.
But swapping votes between branch activists and trade unionists will, in my view, solve nothing, change little, and stand in the way of resuming the Bishop campaign which Stortford interrupted for an accountable leader-