Party Reform: Take back the Fringe

'We should never forget that what draws people into a party is a sense of injustice', argued Douglas Alexander on the Fabian fringe in Manchester, but this created particular challenges for a party seeking to renew itself politically within power.

Alexander said that his experience was that ' the British public are not short of opinions at the moment'. But he was 'very struck by the fact that I ask my party members to do much more than just be a member of an organisation like Greenpeace. People need to join the party as a baseline to then go out and achieve – we have different priorities and methods to single issue campaign groups. And you never get stick in the pub on a Friday night for being a supporter of Oxfam'.

The Fabian fringe event on 'party reform: take back the fringe' was a different type of fringe meeting, with Alexander facilitating a delegate-led session on the challenges facing the party. Participants drew on their experiences from local constituencies around the including Liverpool, Windsor, Fife, Macclesfield, Vauxhall, Lowestoft, Dartford, Cambridge, Forest Gate, Dartford and West Derby, and with Culture Secretary Tessa Jowell and Keith Sonnet, Deputy General Secretary of Unison, joining Douglas Alexander to respond to issues raised.

What is party membership for?

The discussion first focussed on the role of party members within modern political parties. Douglas claimed that the Labour Party always had a commitment to do politics in a different way best for society and that there are many people in the country who do share our values but are not members – how could they show their support?

One participant said there needed to be research into why people have left the party. People need to feel there is something in it for them to be involved, and have choice and an influence in governing the party – people will only join up if there is something for them to participate in. Bob Blizzard MP noted that the age profile of his constituency Labour Party is old and there was a need for more young people to join, but they would not think the CLP is relevant to them. He suggested the idea of Young Champions, ambassadorial roles of key young members as ways of engaging other young people to join. He said the party needed 'young people to inspire others to be radical, which is not easy when the party is in government'.

Daniel Zeichner of Unison pointed out that government is difficult – after the initial enthusiasm of 1997 people are going to be disappointed and disillusioned. But active member participation for most people just simply isn't an attractive option. So the question is, 'how can we make politics more respectable? We haven't yet been clear enough about why we need political parties'. One former councillor commented that since the peak of membership in 1997 many have lost a sense of why they joined. Many would perhaps want to be active but not constrained by meeting functions, which overshadow other more enjoyable or social aspects of participating in the Labour Party.

What makes local parties succeed?

The discussion moved on to address local parties, specifically how they can become more embedded in the communities they represent. Douglas asked 'how can we get to a place where we can say the local Labour Party is a community hub, engaged with other local groups and organisations?' He was clear that 'this is something that cannot be prescribed from the centre, we need to tap into local parties and experiences'.

Tessa Jowell claimed her own CLP was a community campaigning organisation. She said that she had always tried to engage people in campaigning, as 'people will give up their time if there is something in it for them', for example new schools or hospitals. Tessa argued that a mistake in the past had been that the Labour Party had been 'highly prescriptive about the forms of membership', when actually we need to be highly creative about how people can participate and 'tap in to' active local communities and people's need for a sense of self-validation and belonging. She told the audience that we need to be imaginative about procedures that can 'draw people in and release energy for activism' – because 'one of the things government does to you is that it takes you away from activism'.

One participant remarked that as a volunteer for a local Citizen's Advice Bureau she carried out community work with economically disadvantaged groups that is totally in-keeping with her values as a Labour supporter, yet there is no avenue within the Labour Party for her so do such work.

Meanwhile her colleagues at the CAB share her values, but would not consider the Labour Party as a viable route through which to contribute. Another participant mentioned that it was unnecessary to put labels on what you do, you don't stop being a member of the Labour Party when you do other things in life, so being a member of the Labour Party and a participant within the community needn't be seen as mutually exclusive.

How should policy be decided?

Finally, the discussion focused on the policymaking process within the Labour Party, and the role of the members in influencing and making policy.

One participant argued that it was quite clear party members were disenfranchised from the process and Conference was no longer a forum for debate, arguing that issues like Lebanon, trident and privatisation, that matter to many of the delegates, had been kept off the agenda and factors like these were key to why so many people have left recently, and claimed the party was 'in a mess'.

However another participant pointed out that one of the key problems was that the recent reforms to the Labour Party had not yet been properly finished. There are still CLPs that think they should always oppose government and that the highlight is to be a delegate at Conference. There will always be contradictions in debates, and divides between those for and against New Labour, but the lack of a full OMOV structure creates problems when it comes to expressing these differences.

Sunder Katwala of the Fabian Society asked whether it really needed to be the case that Conference had to reach agreements – 'couldn't disagreement be allowed between government and the membership'? He argued that 'creating space for disagreement would be a healthy contribution to a political party'.

Keith Sonnet of Unison had had experience of being involved in government policy. He saw that people become members of the Labour Party because they want to make a difference, but we have lost clear water between us and other parties. He joined the Labour Party because he believed in 'collective action, but it this lack of difference that is turning people off', and increasingly fewer Unison members are supporting Labour. He conceded that the Partnership in power process works better than the previous system and that we have to accept that there will not be unity on every issue. What upsets union activists are instances like when the Fourth Option was supported at conference, the government immediately announced it would not implement the decision. Also foundation hospitals were announced without discussion and outside the manifesto process. Keith argued that such actions by the leadership undermined the policy and decision-making process.