26.09.2019

Democratise the block vote

David Shearer of Labour Party Marxists reminds us of one of the key tasks we face

One thing has become pretty clear at this year’s conference: the huge increase in membership and consequent radicalisation sparked by the election of Jeremy Corbyn in 2015 has not found much reflection within the trade unions.

This is hardly surprising, of course. Corbyn’s election had little effect on the bureaucracies’ control over their unions. Not that things are straightforward or simple. In previous years trade union general secretaries could be relied upon to provide block votes for rightwing leaders of the Labour Party. Now those very same general secretaries are relied upon to provide bloc votes for a malleable left reformist who was made Labour leader against the wishes of the vast bulk of the trade union and labour bureaucracy. Nonetheless, while there are various exceptions, that means doing deals in advance of conference.

That was the case on Saturday September 21 in a series of card votes over proposed rule changes. Two in particular stand out. First, there was the vote on the national executive committee’s proposal to “fast-track” expulsions of party members whose behaviour is judged to be irredeemably unacceptable - without the need for any hearing, for example. Interestingly, a lot of CLP delegates were unconvinced. The card vote showed Constituency Labour Parties narrowly against (52%-48%). By contrast, affiliates (ie, overwhelmingly the unions) were 97% in favour. The CLPs and affiliates have equal weight, of course, both accounting for 50% of the total vote.

Then there was the card vote on ditching the 1995 Blairite version of clause four in favour of the original (Fabian) version. We have made clear our criticisms of the 1918 wording, but it is self-evident that its reinstatement would have marked a substantial advance. CLP delegates voted 56% in favour. But over 99% of the affiliated unions and socialist societies voted against.

It would be stupid, of course, to describe such divisions as representing left and right. But, it is clear that around half of the CLP delegates are prepared to make a stand on what they think Jeremy Corbyn really thinks. There were a number of delegates who are part of the organised left, but compared with the sea of Corbynistas they constituted a small minority.

On Sunday we had a series of national policy forum documents. As delegates cannot amend them, the only option they have is to propose a ‘referencing back’ of particular sections for the NPF to reconsider (clearly, the whole undemocratic NPF should be abolished). When it came to education there were several such proposals, one of which specified that it should be reconsidered on the grounds that it did not contain a clear commitment to abolish grammar schools.

Incredibly, none of these reference-back proposals was put before conference in writing until later in the week - delegates had to listen really carefully about what was being proposed. Perhaps even more incredibly, it was a full three hours later when the chair, Andi Fox, put them to a vote - without even a reminder as to their contents. Unsurprisingly, there was a lot of confusion in the hall. And, when the unions overwhelmingly rejected every single reference back, this caused a huge ruckus.

For the naive, it did indeed look incredibly undemocratic: in vote after vote, a clear majority of hands were raised in favour of a particular reference back - but then the chair ruled that the vote was, in fact, lost. Why? Because in the areas where the union delegates sit, almost all had voted against. The chair explained that as she knew “certain stakeholders” hold more votes than the CLP delegates, she had taken that into consideration to make her decision.

Lots of inexperienced delegates stood up to express their anger - should the chair not actually be counting all the hands? “What is the point of me being here?”, one delegate asked. “Everything us CLP delegates are trying to get through is opposed by the unions over there!” Encouragingly, there was also discontent within a number of union delegations and comrades argued amongst themselves over the wisdom of voting for a document that did not include the abolition of grammar schools.

So what is the solution? Certainly Labour should remain a federal party - indeed in our view it should encourage the affiliation of all working class organisations, including left groups. But, when it comes to bloc votes, it is clear that they need to be democratised. General secretaries should not act as feudal barons.

Not that we favour some sort of trade union opinion poll to ascertain how members feel about this, that or some other issue. That would be more than silly. But trade unions could vote as disaggregated blocs, ie, according to the convictions of each delegate. That would make prior agreements problematic. On the other hand, it would mean that debates at conference would really matter. Arguments might change minds.