When the (largely disproved) allegations surrounding Unite and the Falkirk Labour Party candidate selection process, Blairites within and beyond Labour scented blood. Whilst the media circled Labour, they demanded another overhaul of the link between the parliamentary and trade union arms of the Labour movement. And that is exactly what Ed Miliband promised them. He would spend the next few months hammering out the details of reforms to be approved by a Special Conference in March.
I have to admit, I was unnerved about the motivation for the changes: if they were being forced through by the cappuccino-slurping PPE-ists who are fighting to retain dominance of the Labour Party, it could mean only one thing, namely the weakening of the voice of our trade union affiliates. There are some who will never be happy until the trade unions are forced out of Labour altogether. The day that happens, “Labour” would not be worthy to describe itself as the voice of the workers. Our link with the trade unions anchors the party in the needs and aspirations of working Britain, which is how it should always be. The fantastic work of unions such as Unite, the GMB, Usdaw and Unison of recent years should remind us of that
I have no objection to the introduction of “opt-in” membership of Labour for those joining trade unions rather than the “opt out” system in place for decades. I do wonder why that change should be made when it will cost the party millions, but there are benefits, as I learned recently.
The proposal that will be put to Conference in a few weeks is the abolition of the electoral college for Labour leadership elections. Instead, One Member One Vote will be implemented. Thus MPs and MEPs will lose their huge voting powers, and trade unionist affiliate members will gain voting power. Affiliate members will probably be in the majority, so they will hold the majority of votes.
(However, that leaves the question of what voting power will rest with Registered Supporters, who have 3% of the electoral college. Surely they won’t have parity with fee-paying members?)
I cannot think of a more democratic system for internal elections than OMOV. But this potential victory for party democracy should not distract us from the injustices that exist in how Labour is run. Why do members not have a say in the election of Labour council leaders? Why is it acceptable for the Labour frontbench to completely ignore the orders of Conference? How can we have a genuinely fair and open parliamentary candidate selection proccess?
It will take decades to ensure a genuinely fair distribution of power within the Labour movement, but this is a good start.