Of Plots, Schemes and Slates
Posted: 08/12/2013 | Author: The Political Idealist | Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: Labour, Len McCluskey, London, London Young Labour, socialism, tony blair, UK Independence, UKIP, Unite, University of London Union, young abour, Young Labour |2 Comments »
In the past 18 months, I have entered and become deeply involved in the two bewildering and complex worlds of journalism and political activism. As time wears on, I am coming to see the two as not being parallel, but as interlinked. And accordingly, I feel moved to write about my experience of the first London Young Labour conference I have ever been to. So please bear with me- I will explain this as clearly as I can to “outsiders”.
London Young Labour (LYL) is perhaps the most successful and independent youth political group in the UK: though only a fraction of its 7,000 members (ranging from 14 to 26 years old) are active in the group, it is a campaigning force to be reckoned with. Labour groups in marginal constituencies practically fight each other to host LYL canvassing sessions, in which dozens of fresh-faced activists charm hundreds of voters on the doorstep. An extensive programme of social events and discussion groups means LYL offers every member something. On top of that, the group is the first Young Labour region to introduce a truly democratic policymaking process at its Conference, and it is this that I had the pleasure of participating in yesterday.
The Conference is being hosted (it is a two day gathering, so it finishes this evening) in a vast lecture theatre in University College London, and it was opened with a 45 minute speech from Len McCluskey, General Secretary of Unite, the mega trade union which encompasses almost a quarter of Britain’s 7,500,000 union members. No, that’s not strictly true. It opened with about 200 members filling into the Conference Hall to a dreadful soundtrack of One Direction music, courtesy of Benjamin Butterworth, who represents London on the national Young Labour Committee. How someone so charming and successful in Young Labour politics could have such dreadful taste in music is beyond me.
Anyway, the general thrust of Mr McCluskey’s speech was that us youngsters should be prepared to challenge the status quo and participate in change within and beyond the Labour Party. It was a great and inspiring speech, but Mr McCluskey did have an unfortunate habit of tailing off or slipping at certain points, with the resulting gaffe:
…Tony Blair led Labour to three election victories, and gave me some of the best nights of my life.
A peculiar image which attracted roars of laughter from the members and from Mr McCluskey himself. It was to be the first of many absurdities that day.
I was less than impressed to learn that the Conference Agenda was changed midway through the day, with the consequence that I would miss a significant caucus which I had hoped to attend that had been moved to the following day. If a Conference must be held over two days- and I’m not convinced that it must be- then LYL must understand that many attendees cannot take an entire weekend off for it, and must be able to plan their time around an Agenda that can be relied on not to change! We do have lives outside politics, and other commitments or the expense of travel to central London will prohibit many from attending on both days. To deprive us of the ability to plan our time properly is really poor practice.
However, I did not have long to dwell on this, for then came the matter of Resolutions and Amendments to the Constitution of LYL. The outgoing Chair of LYL, Hazel Nolan, offered a useful demonstration of the process of debating and voting by presenting a frivilous motion in which LYL affirms its support for McVities Digestives as the ‘worker’s biscuit’. As it happens, I was swayed by the opposition speaker who asserted that Hobnobs were the true biscuit of the proletariat.
Things started off rather calmly. Major constitutional amendments were passed with little dissent. Despite some grumbling that Felicity Slater’s resolution, which basically said that LYL should support its activists, was meaningless, there was little drama. But then came the following motion:
Campaigning against UKIP & Far Right Organisation
London Young Labour believes that diversity in London is one of the city’s greatest strengths.
London Young Labour notes the alarming rise of UKIP in the last set of council elections across London.
London Young Labour further notes that UKIP has won a council by-election seat over the summer, and that councillors in London have switched to the UKIP.
London Young Labour believes that UKIP is a divisive presence in our communities.
London Young Labour therefore mandates the London Young Labour Committee to work with progressive organisations such as HOPE not hate and other anti-racist organisations to campaign against a potential rise of UKIP & far-right organisation in the 2014 election and beyond.
Debate became rather heated, and of the two or three opposition speakers- all of whom were of BAME ethnicity- warned that the motion’s heavy implication that UKIP is a racist and far-right organisation was not only flawed but counter-productive, given that the white working class which was backing UKIP was doing so out of disillusionment, and should be engaged with, not condemned as racist. I was led to question the impartiality of the Chair when she asserted that “the motion does not describe UKIP as racist: that is a fact”. Well, no. Any reasonable person would infer that UKIP is a racist organisation if they read the motion. Alas, the motion was still passed with a comfortable majority.
Then came a motion on the campaign against the opposition of the University of London Union. It did not help that half the people there had no idea was was being discussed: why would they? It took a number of “Points of Clarification”- Labourspeak for “questions”- from the floor to work out what the fuss was about. When the Chair demanded that members did not use “Points of Clarification” to make “sneaky arguments”, she irked the member whose question she had just prefaced. The exchange went roughly like this:
Member: If I could raise the following Point of Clarification, without any snobbery from the Chair…
Chair: That was unnecessary.
Member: Well, you’re the one who accused me of making “sneaky points”.
Chair: That wasn’t directed at you in particular.
Member: Well, I was the one you interrupted.
That’s just a taster of how angry people were getting. Perhaps I would have been more sympathetic towards the Chair had she not appeared exasperated with members for not knowing about the finer details of a dispute between the University of London and its students- a university the majority of us have no connection with. Furthermore, the Chair abandoned any claim to impartiality when she later flatly contradicted the proposer’s speech for a motion against the Bedroom Tax.
But this was not all the drama of the day. But I shall save the rest for a later occasion
