“Our challenge is to sustain and spread forces of individual empowerment while enhancing rather than reducing capacity for collective action to tackle shared risks.” Very few in the labour movement could take issue with that broad sweep of aspiration, though the degree to which the balance of risks are shared among Britain’s divided communities is open to a level of scrutiny which drills down into the deeper meaning, and more profound divides, that the blanket statement obscures.
David Miliband is the most senior member of the Government to address at length and publicly the systemic problems confronting the Government in the face of annihilation at the next general election.
This week we devote space to his thoughts as part of the wider debate that is already taking place and will gather pace toward the party’s annual conference. The Foreign Secretary’s focus on what is wrong turns on the need to reform the party. This is quite rich from one of the key architects of the discredited
“new” Labour project and a member of a Government-driven party machine that systematically neutered the party which put it in power, forcing thousands of members into despairing exile while millions of voters turned their backs on Labour.
There is little reference to any Government responsibility in turning around his assertion that political parties are “close to death” or that there will be “few tears at the funeral” (references not included in the article in this edition). Mr Miliband reaches out to the party by asking it to be swallowed up by primaries and mass invitations to non-party members to participate. It is a self-fulfilling prophesy on the ultimate end of Labour as a political party and institution. It amounts to the deliberate silting up of one of the great channels of political thought into an otherwise increasingly detached political elite.
Mr Miliband is right to identify the scaling down of interest among those who do not wish their participation to be limited to shabby Labour rooms, among an unrepresentative grouping with outdated means of communication among members. But his prescription appears to take no account of the fact that membership seems to the vast majority to be pretty futile in terms of influencing policy.
At another level of debate – reported on page 4 – ideas are being put forward to both build the Labour Party from the bottom up by ensuring that membership is relevant and that members are treated with openness and respect for their role. While Peter Kenyon attempts valiantly to wake up the National Executive Committee to its culpability and responsibility and Michael Meacher’s Coalition for a Labour Victory seek the national championship of old Labour, the unions are now also moving to reinstate the internal democracy through resolutions at the national conference.
Those who will groan that these are the battles of the past are not only wrong but blind to the inevitable future if they continue to remove ideas, policy, activist participation and a democratic structure for decision making from the national political process. Dumbing up, not down, is the way to make it big.
About The Author
“Our challenge is to sustain and spread forces of individual empowerment while enhancing rather than reducing capacity for collective action to tackle shared risks.”
“Very few in the labour movement could take issue with that broad sweep of aspiration”
(There is no “issue”, in my view)
“.. Though the degree to which the balance of risks are shared among Britain’s divided communities is open to a level of scrutiny which drills down into the deeper meaning, and more profound divides, that the blanket statement obscures.”
(better to “raise a concern”- make and take some time and space to have a big dialogue about and including whatever is upsetting everyone -)
It seems “Systems” need help to be dynamic and not self serving – and to avoid becoming over-hyped, over-valued, over-blown and eventually go pop. Good policy shouldn’t dump unnecessary burdens onto front-line providers or users. With time and space to raise and share concerns between them, providers and users should and could push whatever frustrations may be burgeoning down into the work/life balance back into its proper, more manageable place (though sometimes it may take a generous dose of compassion locally to avoid unnecessary or inappropriate issues that otherwise might spoil everyone’s jobs and lives).
That’s the way to “dumb up”, in my view.