 deadline has been set. Labour’s dwindling
membership has until 31 July to wake from its stupor.
That’s the date set by its National Executive
Committee for views on party funding. In reality
the choice is stark – do members want a say?
Or are they going to succumb to the latest attempt
by the Blairites to wreck the Labour Party as we
know it and condemn members to crowd scenes only?
The results will be set out in the Labour Party’s
formal response to the Hayden Phillips Inquiry
on Party Funding after Annual Conference in September.
The Project’s architects Peter Mandelson
and former Social Democrat Party founder member
Roger Liddle in ‘The Blair Revolution – Can
New Labour deliver?” writing in 1996 were
crystal clear about their ambitions to smash the
historic Labour – Trade Union link.
“The best way for the concerns of trade-unionists
to be addressed is by more and more of them becoming
individual members of the party. Far from this
being the breaking of a link, it is actually the
establishment of thousands of individual unbreakable
links. In branch meetings, on campaign committees,
in council chambers and in Parliament, trade-unionists
will be able to participate fully in Labour’s
affairs, for themselves.” (p226)
Ten years on the goal remained elusive. That was
until the ‘loans for lordships’ scandal
earlier this year. Rocked by revelations that the
2005 Labour Party general election campaign had
been funded by secret multi-million pound loans,
the No.10 strategists seized the moment. On 16
March 2006, Prime Minister Tony Blair announced
an Inquiry into the funding of political parties
to be conducted by former top civil servant, Sir
Hayden Phillips.
Writing in Chartist #212 on the Electoral Commission
report on the funding of political parties published
in December 2004, I said:
“This report effectively buries the subject
of increased state-funding of political parties,
and leaves the role of trade unions in British
politics untouched. In less than 30 months, the
Blairites ambitions for reshaping the Labour party
irrevocably have been shattered, possibly irreversibly.”
How wrong I was. Less than 15-months later, the
Blairites launched another sortie to destroy collectivism,
and a century of Labour Party history. Why? Opportunity,
dear reader, opportunity. How can they be so brazen?
Firstly, there was a desperate need for a diversionary
tactic to take the spotlight off the role of the
Prime Minister himself in the loans affair. Secondly,
the Electoral Commission report was never cemented
in the public domain. (Its publication was buried
without trace by sensational headlines heralding
the first David Blunkett resignation (as Home Secretary)
and the Law Lords landmark ruling on the Belmarsh
detainees.) Thirdly, all three mainstream political
party leaders are having problems funding their
parties, recruiting and retaining members and keeping
them under control. (The media has yet to put Parliament’s
own failure, to debate the Electoral Commission
report on the funding of political parties, under
the public spotlight.)
In the absence of effective public scrutiny, what
better opportunity to try again to make the case
for state-funding of political parties, and, by
the way, smash the Labour – Trade Union link?
The Labour Party National Executive Committee meeting
the following week was bounced into endorsing the
Hayden Phillips’ Inquiry. A week later in
a letter written by then un-elected Party chair,
Ian McCartney MP set out Labour’s initial
response to the Inquiry. He described “eight
key pillars” for discussion: 1. Greater investment
in our democracy, 2. An overall cap on Party expenditure,
3. A lower limit on individual donations, 4. Respect
for the internal membership structures of political
parties, 5. Transparency on spending, 6. Foundation
for Democracy 7. Charitable status 8. Devolved
institutions. Who could argue with any of this?
Nobody except, Save the Labour Party. It issued
a press release the day after Blair announced the
Inquiry, calling on the Labour Leader to concentrate
on rebuilding party membership and stop trying
to milk the taxpayer.
Hayden Phillips job is to forge a consensus to
do just that. To help him, Blair reshuffled his
ministerial pack immediately after the local government
elections on 4 May 2006. McCartney was bundled
out of his un-elected post as ‘party chair’ – too
close to the unions – into a middle-ranking
ministerial post, with permission to continue to
sit in at Cabinet meetings. Ultra-Blairite loyalist,
Hazel Blears MP was ushered in to fix the Party’s
position. The task of forging a cross-party consensus
in the Houses of Parliament was assigned to former
Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw, in his new role
as Leader of the House of Commons.
In the meantime, parliamentary bodies woke up
to the opportunity to dig and delve. The Constitutional
Affairs committee of the House of Commons, chaired
by former Liberal Democrat deputy leader Alan Beith,
MP has taken a particular interest in the party
funding issue. Among the committee’s members
is Andrew Tyrie MP, the Conservative Party’s
acknowledged expert on party funding. He is using
his position on the committee to press a blatantly
partisan plan for an individual donation cap of £50,000
that would wreck the Labour Party, and benefit
the Tories. His opportunism was spotted by the
Trade Union and Labour Party Liaison Organisation
(TULO), which commissioned Keith Ewing, professor
of public law at King’s College, London to
write its own submission to the Constitutional
Affairs committee. Ewing exposes how the Conservatives
are using the opportunity created by Labour’s
Prime Minister to damage Labour and the Labour – Trade
Union link. TULO’s choice of Ewing was no
coincidence. He authored a Catalyst pamphlet in
2002 that paved the way two years later for the
Electoral Commission report on funding political
parties backing the status quo. More recently,
he has jointly edited an important book on party
funding and campaigning from an international perspective.
The editors caution using party funding in a partisan
way or as a means of discouraging political participation
by individuals and groups with the community.
By the time of the May National Executive Committee
the implications were beginning to filter through.
Questions were asked about the position the Labour
Party had adopted towards the Hayden Phillips Inquiry.
The idea of political parties having charitable
status (pillar number 7) in the McCartney scenario
came in for particular criticism.
A membership-wide consultation was launched. Then
it was the turn of the Party spin-miesters to rig
the agenda. Pillar number 6 – the Foundation
for Democracy was placed number 1 on the Labour
Party website consultation. Who could possibly
disagree with the idea of promoting democracy?
For any beleaguered Labour Party branch or constituency
treasurer the idea of state-funding could come
as a great relief - no more thankless hours spent
fund-raising.
A principled approach is vital to stop this venture
in its track. Is the Labour Party a federated body
of individual and affiliated members from trades
unions and socialist societies? Or is it a virtual
supporters’ network for careerist politicians
and their advisors?
Alarmed by signs of growing unrest in Labour’s
ranks, the Blairites have ventured what could be
their last ditch assault on the Labour-Trade Union
link by suggesting that to access tax-payers money
to fund political parties, the trade unions would
have to accept opt-in legislation governing political
donations. This highly controversial proposal surfaced
at a private meeting in Jack Straw’s office
on 21 June. It may have been one step too far even
for the ministers present.
An ad hoc group of Labour Party members including
MPs, MSPs, trade union leaders, former party officials
and grassroots activists have published a leaflet
for circulation to party members to widen the debate.
The authors’ aim is to block the latest attempt
by the Blairites to wreck the party and lay foundations
for rebuilding by getting in touch with every constituency
party in the country.
We have (yes, I am one of them) until 31 July
to demonstrate our capacity to organise. We have
to make it impossible for the Blairites to wreck
the Labour Party as a federated body, in which
collectivism is seen as a vital part not just of
our history, but our political future. Then the
process of rebuilding the Party can start in earnest.
Peter Kenyon is Clerk to the LabOUR Commission
- www.labourcommission.org.uk |
This
month
Archive
of past articles