son to reject Blair's eva- The so-called consultation sions on nationalisation, over Clause Four was the full employment, the minifirst time the constituency mum wage and trade unparties have voluntarily' Had John Edmonds used the one member, one taken seriously his own vote system (OMOV), although it is now compulweek earlier at the Scot- sory for leadership and tish TUC for renationalisation and a plan to create a NEC elections.
Although the NEC pulled million new jobs, and the back from making it compulsory on this occasion, some been pushed close to de- 500 CLPs bowed to pressure to implement OMOV, and this The fight on policy in the proved a key element of Blair's unions will now take on in- success. creased importance. The The exercise was reminiswhole debate about how cent of a napoleonic plebiscite, the decision on Clause Four' simply seeking the endorsewas made was always de- ment of the leader's authority, signed to steer away from and minimising the impact of the central political choice any informed debate by reachthat was on offer, between ing out to the most passive and Blair's total capitulation to least committed members. free market capitalism, or The ballot paper produced adherence to the notion of a by Walworth Road was a travdifferent type of system, based on common owner- esty, offering no option to vote positively for the old Clause In the struggles yet to Four, and was accompanied by come these issues will a sucophantic letter from Tom come back to haunt the un- Sawyer. Although there was no ion leaders who fixed the compulsion to use this, few CLPs decided to produce their own ballot material.
Having seen how helpful it can be, and how strong a voice it gives the right wing media in shaping policies along his chosen lines, we can expect the principle of OMOV ballots to be promoted more widely by Blair and his team, not only on Labour Party issues, but also on union policy questions.
Tighter control Inside the party this neatly coincides with the assault on the frequency of General Management Committee meetings and on the policy-making power of the annual conference, with the objective of bringing the party under evertighter control.
This of course is described as democracy. But replacing representative, delegated democracy with the spurious voting by uninformed, uninvolved individuals prey to the pressure of the mass media is a serious attack on democracy. In particular it excludes any trade union input from decision-making.
The democratic way of deciding policy centres on voting at General Committee level atter full debate involving the views of delegates from all , wards and affiliated unions.
Even when holding ballots there are more democratic options than Blair's plebiscite method. In Islington North CLP. the left managed to get an alternative ballot paper, containing both the options.
In other situations, ballot papers can be distributed at meetings which debate the issue, with postal votes for those who genuinely cannot attend.
Whatever the mechanism, the political fight must go on. If the left fail to explain the principles behind opposition to OMOV, we will not persuade many of the new layer of members joining the party without experience in the unions.
We cannot leave the territory to the leadership and their spin doctors. We have to fight within OMOV, while at the same time fighting for a more democratic alternative.
SOCIALIST OUTLOOK No. 83, May 13 1995, Page 5.