One of the reasons I joined the Labour Party
way back in 1987 was because it was more than just a party. It was at the heart
of a movement of community activists, trade unionists, co-operators,
environmentalists, internationalists and much more.
Labour is different because we have woven
these relationships into the fabric of our party – how we make policy, how we select our
candidates, how we make decisions at the highest level. And how we elect our
leaders.
The party was founded in 1900 by the trade
unions. The Electoral College was put in place in 1981 to take away the power
to elect leaders from the Parliamentary Labour Party and share it with trade
unionists, affiliates and members. That was a step in the right direction. The
block vote was then abolished within the college in 1993, giving power to individual
union members. Again, an important step.
I have always supported the principle of the Electoral
College, though always also accepted the need for reform. I voted for it as a
member of the WEC. It seemed to me that the party had not had an opportunity to
reflect deeply on how to reform the college to better reflect today’s realities.
But listening to the debate in the party in
the recent weeks, I feel that as a movement we are now ready for a change in
how we elect our leader.
My friends in GMB and Unison have responded to
this by floating the idea that we remove the AMs and MPs section of the college
and redistribute that section of the college between affiliates and members
sections.
Elected representatives (AMs in the case of
Welsh Labour leader) have a crucial role in choosing one of their colleagues as
leader, and can continue to do that by ensuring that they nominate leadership
candidates, who they have seen in action at close quarters and who combine
radical vision and profound commitment to our values, with electability and an
ability to lead.
The argument behind removing the separate
section in the college for elected representatives is powerful - that each vote
should carry the same weight. But if you accept that argument, then I think it
goes further than that, and demands more change than simply removing one
section of the college.
If the principle is that every vote cast
should carry the same weight, that should apply to everyone – members, elected
politicians, trade unionists and other affiliate members.
That means a single integrated electorate,
each vote equal, but bringing together all parts of the movement.
This combined electorate would include, together
with party members, members of affiliated unions, Cooperative Party, or other
affiliates.
In this way, we can ensure that the voices of
trade unionists, co-operators and other affiliates have their rightful place
alongside party members in electing the leader.
But the quid pro quo is to recognise that the
right to vote should be based on a clear commitment to our values -
demonstrated through a given period of full membership of either the party, or
union or other affiliate, and not simply a readiness to part with a fee. Welsh Labour
should not adopt a consumerist, transactional, pay-your-money-take-your-choice
model of participation, in the election of our leader.
Unions and the other affiliated organisations
will still make supporting nominations and recommend their preferred candidate
to their members. And alongside members and elected representatives, they must
continue to play the full role they have today in policy making and on the
executive bodies of the party.
Our movement lives, grows and flourishes
through the adaptability and commitment to equality of all its parts.
It is time now for us all - including those of
us who have valued the Electoral College - to look afresh at how we ensure that
we reflect those principles in reforming the system we use to elect our next
leader.
