Keep the Link

David Moxham

The unique nature of the British Labour Party has been evident throughout the course of our hundred year history. In Lenin's often misinterpreted passage (most regularly heard - until a recent change of heart - from the Socialist Workers Party) "We support the Labour Party like the noose supports the hanged man..." he goes on to place particular emphasis on the fundamental role of trade unions in the Party. He points towards the potential strength for a socialist/social democratic party in having such an organic link with the organisations of those who produce the wealth.

One doesn't have to accept Lenin's overall analysis to recognise the truth of the description. For better or worse the Party has developed in such a way that the disaffiliation of our trade union core would fundamentally change its nature and in so doing would fundamentally change the nature of British politics.

There are those within our own party who would welcome such change. Though they rarely have the courage to argue it openly, they believe that the disaffiliation of labour from Labour could bring about the final transformation of Labour into big business' long-term choice for the delivery of the optimum capitalist conditions.

Outside the Party, there are many former, and some current, trotskyists who believe that the die is already cast. They argue that Labour has irretrievably changed its nature, sold out the trade union movement and that the only answer is a new party of labour - in Scotland of course this would be the SSP.

In the strongest sense these two projects are complementary. To create a party of the centre-right, unminded to challenge the "logic" of neo-liberalism with its attendant privatisation and alienation, would implicitly require the creation of a large party of labour to represent the millions whose lives are being and will continue to be affected by the current neo-liberal lurch. And vice-versa.

As well as being complementary in their objectives, these two projects also share a similar strategy. Consistent undermining of the trade unions by the New Labour leadership may lead to a process of a drip-drip disaffiliation until the change becomes irreversible. Equally these sections of the right and left share a significant underestimation of the terrible havoc such a process would wreak on progressive politics in this country.

But who can blame RMT activists for deciding, in the face of Labour inaction on their key priorities, to affiliate to a party which does support these priorities? And who can blame the Labour Party, in the face of a clear breach of our rules, for the effective expulsion of the RMT? Between these two truths lies a gulf of political inaction which, unless addressed will lead to more of the same.

The effect of the Firefighters strike cannot be underestimated. Whatever ones view on the justice of their claim, the all-out attack on this loyal and united union amounted to an attack on the integrity of the firefighters themselves. The dispute went far beyond a disagreement between friends on the economics of a pay and conditions dispute and was transformed into a political attack designed to dislocate a highly democratic union from her members. It was not the first such attack and is unlikely to be the last. We can be sure that its implications were not lost on the RMT. Nor should they be lost on those in the Labour Party who support the link but failed to support the FBU.

On the other hand it can be argued that trade unions have, over a period of some years, underestimated the importance of union involvement and influence at every level of the Party - branch and CLP as well as Party Conference and government. Significantly this has led to a perceived dislocation between the views of trade unions and party activists on the conference floor. On issues such as the Iraq War and PFI, the spin doctors have been able to cynically exploit these perceived differences - blaming the union "barons" for abusing the block vote and "being out of touch"

Meanwhile these same spin doctors must be astonished that there has been so little public attention paid to Labour Party reselection procedures for MPs and MSPs. Our supposedly "one person - one vote" party in fact relies overwhelmingly on the both the goodwill of, and the decisive power given over to, the same trade unions whose use of voting power is so consistently attacked at other times.
The answer of course is for trade unions and ordinary party members to combine at every level to work towards proper Democracy, Devolution and progressive policies. And this is precisely what has been emerging over the past year or so.

Whereas two years ago the unions at Scottish Conference could hardly find a CLP backer for their opposition to PPPs (this despite the significant actual opposition to PPP at constituency level), last year the unions and CLPs worked together and voted in both sections by over 80% to force a debate on the Iraq War.

Again this year, there has been significant co-operation over the presentation of constitutional amendments to revitalise the Scottish Labour Party - amendments proposed by a wide variety of CLPs and unions. If passed these amendments will do far more than demonstrate the centrality of such co-operation. They will genuinely progress the democratic framework for debate and in so doing promote exactly the level of discourse and activity which Scottish Labour so desperately needs.

The constitutional amendments accept implicitly that there were no halcyon days of Labour Party Democracy, Devolution to which we must return. Instead it is argued that, if we have a conference and policy forum process which aims to formulate and ratify policy then we must actually be given the power to undertake that function. If, under PR and coalitions, the policies of Labour are be changed through negotiation with other parties, we who make the policy should be empowered to scrutinise the changes. If we are collectively, to act as the policy making unit for the Scottish Labour Party, we must be allowed to discuss whatever matters we wish - even if decisions taken on reserved issues merely form the basis of a submission to the UK policy forum.

Predictably there will be pressure on unions and CLP delegates to remit or vote against these motions. The leadership may well offer "practical" and "legalistic" reasons why they should do so. The Campaign for Socialism believes the amendments are well crafted and strong. We hope that they will secure significant support and in so doing move forward the inseparable projects of democratising the Party and strengthening the trade union link. The aims of the Revitalise amendments fall into four categories

• Debating reserved issues

• Scrutiny

• Policy Making

• Accountability

Debating reserved issues

What the amendment says:
SO 3(c) - insert after "topic" - "(including devolved, reserved, European and international issues)"

What the amendment means:
The amendment ends all doubt over whether contemporary motions are permitted to discuss reserved, European and international issues. It explicitly states that these are matters which are within the competence of the Conference.

Why pass the amendment:
In reality the Scottish Labour Party (SLP) has never properly resolved whether reserved issues may be discussed. In 2002, the Conference unanimously passed a resolution that pertained only to Yarlswood Detention Centre in England on an entirely reserved issue (asylum). Last year, despite being prevented from holding a vote and having the debate in private, the Conference discussed the war in Iraq. Confusingly, the National Executive Committee has been advised that the rules preclude discussion of "reserved" issues. This amendment will clarify the situation.

In the run up to a general election it is absurd that the party in Scotland does not debate these issues. Motions passed by Scottish Party Conference would still be fed into the UK National Policy Forum (NPF) process. However, it would send a clear message as to the views of the party in Scotland on the issue under debate.

Scrutiny

What the amendment says:
SO 1(f) - insert after "including" - "its assessment of progress in implementing the programme, manifesto, contemporary and emergency resolutions agreed by annual conference,"
SO 3(b) - insert after "Forum" - "its assessment of progress in implementing the programme, manifesto, contemporary and emergency resolutions agreed by annual conference,"

What the amendment means:
In addition to developing policy, the Scottish Policy Forum (SPF) will have a role in monitoring how policy is delivered. This will be the case for all policy passed at conference.

Why pass the amendment:
The current Partnership in Power (PiP) processes focus on developing policy. Important though that is, there is no mechanism for Conference to check on what has been achieved, how the party programme and manifesto has been delivered - what has worked well and what hasn't. To address this the SPF could adopt a scrutiny role that could include monitoring progress on contemporary and emergency resolutions passed at conference to ensure a proper feedback.

Policy Making

What the amendment says:
SO 3(a) - add at end - "In a year when conference is considering the final stage documents from the SPF, CLPs and affiliated organisations may submit up to two amendments to the final stage documents."

What the amendment means:
When considered by Conference, the final stage documents produced by the Scottish Policy Forum may be amended by the Conference itself, provided the amendment is proposed by a CLP or affiliate and passed by a majority of Conference.

Why pass the amendment:
The current practice of presenting documents en bloc is of particular concern. Real alternatives and choices should be set out each year for Conference to debate and decide. Too often in the past, genuine and sensible opposition to small sections of policy reports have forced organisations to attempt "throw the baby out with the bathwater". Delegates should not be faced with the choice of keeping quiet on matters of concern for fear of destroying two years of work of the SPF.

Accountability

What the amendment says:
Clause 15 - add new (c) - "In the event that the Scottish Parliament Labour Group is unable to command a majority in the Scottish Parliament and/or decides to enter into a coalition with another parliamentary group, that decision, together with the proposed coalition agreement, shall be put to a special conference, constituted as set out in Clause 7 above. That special conference shall either ratify or reject the decision of the Scottish Parliament Labour Group."

And a consequential amendment:

Clause 7 - add after first sentence - "A special conference will be summoned by the Scottish Executive Committee in the event that the Scottish Parliament Labour Group is unable to command a majority in the Scottish Parliament and/or decides to enter into a coalition with another parliamentary group as set out in Clause 15 below."

What the amendment means:
There is currently provision for calling special conferences in the rules (Clause 7). This is a rule change to extend the grounds for calling such a conference to include the eventuality where a minority Scottish Parliament Labour Group seeks to enter into a coalition with another parliamentary group.

Following the coalition deal last year, there has been widespread concern over the absence of meaningful consultation with the party, particularly when the arrangements adopted by the Liberal Democrats gave at least the appearance of being more democratic than our own. One solution is a special conference that would ensure a proper debate and a collective ownership when hard decisions have to be made.

There are of course limitations to this accountability. We must recognise the constitutional position of MSPs and the practicalities of negotiating an agreement with one or more other political parties. How an MSP votes in parliament is a matter for that MSP and the Group cannot conduct detailed negotiations with conference selecting different parts of the proposed coalition agreement. Nonetheless it would be an opportunity for the Scottish Parliament Labour Group to receive meaningful feedback and support or otherwise for their position.