An Agenda for Britain. Frank Field
be resulting in chaos.
Whether advised by Mrs Thatcher or not, Clinton applied an equal determination to destroy his links with the old, traditional Democratic Party as it fought the presidential election. The Party, of course, continued to be successful in many state, local and congressional elections. Indeed he went even further than Mrs Thatcher: he made a virtue out of apologizing for the Party’s past. Contrast this with the British record. All the changes Neil Kinnoock wrought in the Labour Party were presented as though nothing much had happened, or, at best, that any such changes were only a logical extension of previously long-held positions. Big changes were made but the voters would be forgiven in thinking that they weren’t. Bigger changes remain to be made.
Democratic leaders have distinct advantages over their Labour counterparts. Presidential candidates emerge through a public primary system where voters choose a candidate whose programme reflects their views. Changing a party programme is therefore that much easier. Change is also made easier since the Democratic Party is a much looser federation than the British Labour Party. Moreover, vested interests are not built into the day-to-day running of the Party as they are in the Labour Party.
But Clinton did not leave the matter of the Democratic Party’s past failure by making a general apology. Unlike Labour, Clinton did not blame the voters. He laid the blame squarely on the Party. Instead of pretending that those voters with different views to the Party’s prevailing orthodoxy were a collection of moral deviants, Clinton went out, met and listened to the voters. The Democratic programme this time began and ended with the fears and hopes, despair and aspirations of voters who had previously crossed over to the Republicans.
There is another equally important lesson to learn from Clinton’s success. This centres on his insistence on building up a programme which appealed to a wide coalition of interests and brought the Democrat Party diverse support. What might be done in the UK on this score is an underlying theme of all the following chapters.
Here I underline the importance of the apology Clinton gave to the voters for the past behaviour of the Democrat Party. Labour must similarly seek the opportunities and the occasions to gain a rapprochement with the electorate.
Party Reform
An apology in words has to be followed with action and here I begin with the nature of the Labour Party itself. If what happened in the early 1980s had occurred to an individual we would have classified the event as a severe mental breakdown. It is not enough for Labour to apologize and promise to do better, although that would be a start. Two decisive changes must take place. A commitment to changing the voting system should accompany a total overhaul of the Party’s constitution. The Party structure must be reformed to prevent a situation from occurring again where pressure from minority groups results in a large part of the Party leadership commending to voters views and policies which, without that pressure, they have since recanted.
The greatest defence of our current electoral system is that it produces strong government. But consider for a moment what is meant by strong. If pushing through a programme about which many back-benchers on the government’s side have major reservations is a sign of strength, then I suppose the British Government qualifies. Similarly, if a strong government is equated with the views of only a minority of the electorate being imposed upon the majority, then again Britain can claim that it is ruled by a strong government.
But if the words ‘strong government’ are dropped in favour of ‘representative government’, then our voting system does far less well – indeed it does very badly. Take the 1992 election results. If two parties are wiped out completely from the calculations, the distribution of seats almost exactly mirrors the proportion of votes gained in the country. The two parties which need to disappear from consideration are the Liberal Democrats and the Scottish Nationalists whose following in the country was not represented by the number of seats they held in the House of Commons.
My belief is that the declaration of a willingness to change the electoral system and, if need be, to share power with another party might – just – so restore Labour with the electorate that it wins an outright majority to implement such a programme. But the price is high. The chances of this working have to be weighed against the possibility that Labour might never again form a majority government.
A promise to reform the electoral system needs also to be accompanied by determined shake-up of the Party’s own constitution. As action here can take place without winning an election, change on this front gives a glorious opportunity for the Party to convince voters that it has not only been transformed, but is prepared to take the kinds of tough decisions with respect to its own domain which will be even more necessary with respect to the country after the next general election.
We need to start with an acceptance that the so-called democratic reforms of the Party in the early 1980s were largely undesirable; they concentrated power in the hands of the activists rather than the full membership. It is also necessary to accept that we live in an age of privatized leisure which is hostile to the ‘public meeting’ syndrome which political parties are dependent upon. So let me end by listing the agenda as I see it for party reform. This agenda rejects proposals such as giving every levy-paying trade union member full Labour Party membership. It calls for an end to the block vote in the running of party affairs. An age which sees the end of mass parties calls for a new constitution to match the times in which we live.
Indeed, a hundred years since its first constitution was established Labour should seize the opportunity to draft a new constitution. Amongst many changes, the new constitution should state that the parliamentary leader – the person who would become prime minister – should be elected by Members of Parliament only. The present electoral college system prevents any leader from being removed from office against his or her wishes – that needs to end. Also voters don’t want trade unions to have a say in who is going to be the prime minister as they elect MPs directly to make that choice.
Second, a position of party president should be created which would be elected on a one person–one vote membership throughout the entire Party. The party president would have the task of supporting the Party in the country and representing those views in the shadow cabinet. The holder would carry shadow cabinet rank irrespective of whether he or she was an MP or peer.
Third, trade union members should have an influence in the Party only to the extent to which individual trade unionists chose to carry Party cards. The block vote would therefore be abolished.
Fourth, as Labour will never have a mass membership, the Party should therefore cut its organizational cloak according to this cloth. The efforts of regional organizers and their staff at the last election helped secure twice the national average swing in some key marginal constituencies. That success needs to be spread and reflected in the balance of staff between Labour’s headquarters at Walworth Road and the regions. A party which preaches decentralization and regionalism as the basis for reforming British government would justly get short shrift from the electorate if it maintained a rigid centralization of power in its own affairs.
Fifth, the preparation of policy documents should fall to the staff in the Leader of the Opposition’s office, and the offices of trade unions. Trade unions, as affiliated organizations, would have a right to present policy proposals at the NEC and at the national conference. Conference should become a forum for debate rather than pretending it is some form of representative parliament – which it clearly is not. The adoption of policy should be by the membership by postal ballot. This would affect how the trade unions vote in the Party. The trade union vote in Party affairs would be limited to the number of real, rather than imaginary, Labour Party members contained by the unions. Those members would need to pay the full membership and not gain influence because they pay the political levy.
Sixth, the selection of parliamentary candidates would be by one person–one vote only. Re-selections would be initiated by a majority vote of all constituency party members.
Seventh, Clause 4 Part 4 of the existing constitution (which demands common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange) would be omitted, giving Labour the chance to express its objectives adequately. Labour’s ends are not about the dreary task of nationalizing or renationalizing this or that industry.