BY THE beginning of next week (February 4) the gate will have come down on applications for the post of general secretary of the Labour Party. In their hands the party’s National Executive Committee will have the name of the person who will be handed responsibility for reforming the management of the party at a critical juncture in its history. It will be a tough job and it will require somebody with a lot more clout, better judgment, political skills and experience in the labour movement than recent incumbents, whose failures have exacerbated and illuminated the dysfunction that now lies at the centre of Labour’s internal affairs.
Much has been done, admirably, to modernise the party. Membership matters appear to be handled with impeccable efficiency. But much of what is important to the integrity and robustness of the party management has been left by the wayside as the focus and the reality of power has shifted to Government and Downing Street.
The primary casualty has been internal democracy and accountability. In losing its grip on control of finances and financial propriety, the national executive, with honourable individual exceptions, is itself culpable. There was no binding decree from Downing Street that the party’s voice should be weakened, even if that, in practice, was the (successful) aim. But weakened it has been. And that in large part has been due to the presence of two weak general secretaries, whose paramount natural instinct of loyalty to Number 10 appeared to be superior to that towards the party.
When the NEC agreed, at the suggestion of then general secretary Peter Watt, that there was no need for a cap on spending on the leadership and deputy leadership campaigns (apparently in order to maximise income from its levy on cash raised for the contest) it not only made a mistake which is proving costly in real terms. It also abrogated its responsibility to the party. The charge applies equally to the failure to impose a set of clear rules, with transparent oversight from within party headquarters as well as within the individual campaigns themselves.
This same NEC presided over the sending out of a job speculation for the general secretary’s job which did not even specify that the applicant should be a member of the Labour Party. Chair Dianne Hayter was rightly outraged and made her feelings plain to the officers responsible. But the fact that staff felt unfettered by the need to ensure approval from the elected membership and officers of the NEC articulates to some degree the depth to which respect for the NEC’s authority has sunk.
And this is the same NEC that will choose the general secretary who needs to restore authority in their own office and the NEC itself. It is, therefore, no surprise that there is a mood in some sections of the labour movement that a clean break requires that no one with present or recent association with the NEC should be considered for the post of general secretary. If that case is put, it would have a simple and attractive logic. But – and no one knows what the final line-up will be – it may rule out candidates who have a strong contention for performing in a different role in the party’s interests.
Labour is not yet unelectable, in spite of the gloom discussed on this page last week. But an essential factor in turning round the gloom will be the dedication and energy of a democratic and inclusive party with a strong general secretary.
Above all, the successful applicant will need to have an outstanding track record of involvement in the Labour Party, a proven reputation for honesty and competence, honed campaigning skills, management experience and a determination to see through reforms based on restoring the party’s democratic structure, finances and spirit.
There was a time when Labour Prime Ministers would travel from Downing Street to party headquarters for a meeting with the general secretary. Surely it is not too much to hope that the successful candidate this time will have the strength to say, as they once did: “Sorry Prime Minister, the party won’t stand for that.”
