As Joe Irvine outlines on page 10, he faces a challenge of public perception, party and policies. It is not unfair to say that as far as the public and a large section of his party are concerned, the jury is still out, though his critics are quick to exaggerate perceived deficiencies and ignore obvious strengths.
In Liverpool, Mr Miliband needs to reach out to both public and party by building on the promise of his speech last year, with radical policies and plans for a more democratic party.
After almost two decades of top-down control, Labour needs to rebuild, refound and transform the party. Many members and influential figures within the party have been impressed with the Refounding Labour consultation process, though on some key ad potentially contentious points – such as “supporter” categories of participation – Mr Miliband appears to have made his mind up in advance.
The agreed form of words to be put to conference leaves much open to interpretation. Under New Labour, many party members felt not just ignored but resented by the leadership, as though to expect a role in policy-making were an unreasonable demand. A more democratic party will be a stronger party. But the results of the Refounding Labour process appear to fall short of what is truly required while simultaneously presenting the danger of sparking unnecessary internal squabbles.
On the issue of the trade unions’ share of the vote at conference, for example, very few submissions to the consultation process were in favour of a reduction below 50 per cent as a result of the creation of a “supporters” category. Any reduction in the union link is likely to look punitive and deferential to right-wing forces inside and outside the party.
While there is broad agreement on the need to reach beyond the membership to helpers and sympathisers, particularly trade union members, there has been little support among party members for granting registered supporters a vote for the Labour leader. The leadership should be careful that its reforms do not achieve, in some cases, the opposite of democratisation. The idea of replacing local government committees, which provide a vital link between members and councils, with local campaign forums is flawed in its one-size-fits-all model and requires further thought beyond Liverpool, as do many other proposals.
Refounding Labour has been a start but it will be a false start if the opportunity to go further is not pursued. Members should be given more influence over policy development and manifesto priorities and conference should be given back its former status as the party’s supreme policy-making body while the National Policy Forum is reformed to make it more effective and relevant.
Above all, Ed Miliband needs to define this stronger Labour Party with a vision that will resonate with the wider public. A year on from the promise of his leadership election, Ed Miliband faces another Labour conference. As Joe Irvine outlines on page 10, he faces a challenge of public perception, party and policies. It is not unfair to say that as far as the public and a large section of his party are concerned, the jury is still out, though his critics are quick to exaggerate perceived deficiencies and ignore obvious strengths.
In Liverpool, Mr Miliband needs to reach out to both public and party by building on the promise of his speech last year, with radical policies and plans for a more democratic party.
After almost two decades of top-down control, Labour needs to rebuild, refound and transform the party. Many members and influential figures within the party have been impressed with the Refounding Labour consultation process, though on some key ad potentially contentious points – such as “supporter” categories of participation – Mr Miliband appears to have made his mind up in advance.
The agreed form of words to be put to conference leaves much open to interpretation. Under New Labour, many party members felt not just ignored but resented by the leadership, as though to expect a role in policy-making were an unreasonable demand. A more democratic party will be a stronger party. But the results of the Refounding Labour process appear to fall short of what is truly required while simultaneously presenting the danger of sparking unnecessary internal squabbles.
On the issue of the trade unions’ share of the vote at conference, for example, very few submissions to the consultation process were in favour of a reduction below 50 per cent as a result of the creation of a “supporters” category. Any reduction in the union link is likely to look punitive and deferential to right-wing forces inside and outside the party.
While there is broad agreement on the need to reach beyond the membership to helpers and sympathisers, particularly trade union members, there has been little support among party members for granting registered supporters a vote for the Labour leader. The leadership should be careful that its reforms do not achieve, in some cases, the opposite of democratisation. The idea of replacing local government committees, which provide a vital link between members and councils, with local campaign forums is flawed in its one-size-fits-all model and requires further thought beyond Liverpool, as do many other proposals.
Refounding Labour has been a start but it will be a false start if the opportunity to go further is not pursued. Members should be given more influence over policy development and manifesto priorities and conference should be given back its former status as the party’s supreme policy-making body while the National Policy Forum is reformed to make it more effective and relevant.
Above all, Ed Miliband needs to define this stronger Labour Party with a vision that will resonate with the wider public.
