FOLLOWING the "period of consultation", Labour's National Executive Committee has published the rule changes it will submit to Party Conference in October.
Their proposals show that the whole so-called consultation exercise was a sham.
Despite that fact that about 100 conference resolutions from CLPs either reject the draft proposals or call for any decision to be deferred for a year to allow for a fuller discussion, the NEC proposals are nothing very new.
Tom Sawyer's summary of the results of the consultation to the NEC is straight form George Orwell's 1984 "Newspeak".
Thus he claims "there was general support for the consultation exercise, with one fifth of respondents specifically welcoming the opportunity to make comment on the NEC document".
One fifth is general support?
The report states that 24 per cent of those responding expressed explicit support for the proposed revised composition of the NEC. Does that mean 76 per cent rejected it?
Weare not told what proportion wanted to retain the right of individual members to vote for MPs for the NEC. We should be told.
Even this rigged report admits that there was 'substantial' (unquantified) concern that conference must remain the sovereign policy-making body of the party, with 'real" debate taking place at Behind this façade of 'democracy', the leadership remains intent on ramming through its undemocratic proposals. Concerns about lack of time for serious discussion of the proposals are brushed aside with the argument that the changes will take time to be implemented, and anyway the government is already delivering its side of the partnership.
Amendment
There is only one amendment to the proposed rule changes compared to the original document. Because substantial concern has been expressed that unions and CLPs would no longer be able to submit resolutions direct to party conference, and more importantly because it looked like some major unions might reject the whole package because of this, a cosmetic job has been done.
The proposed rule change says that "Affiliated organisations may submit one motion on a topic which is either not substantively addressed in the reports to ConferThe issue of Labour Party democracy hangs over other policy battles ence of either the NPF [National Policy Forum] or NEC or which has arisen since the publication of those reports.
"The CAC [Conference Arrangements Committee] shall determine whether the motions meet these criteria and submit all issues received to a priorities ballot at the start of Conference."
As clear as mud - but it might be used by some union leaderships to wriggle out of their mandate to oppose the lot.
The attack on Party-Union link within the general assault on Party democracy of 'Partnership in Power' is made clear in the proposed make-up of the National Policy Forum.
Commitments LU maintain the 50 per cent union input into Party Conference are shown to be hollow when we see that on the National Policy Forum, which in many ways would displace conference as the body discussing policy, CALL the proportion of union delegates is only 17 per cent. And this body would only have a total of 175 delegates!
The reasons for rejecting the rule changes remain the same as those for rejecting the original consultation document: Conference would be downgraded from the sovereign policy-making body to a talking shop endorsing reports from the leadership.
The NEC as the body elected by the whole party would be effectively sidelined by a new Joint Policy Committee' with an in-built cabinet majority.
CLPs would no longer have the right to nominate their MP for the NEC, and members would no toilel blet t1 NEC being subject to leadership patronage.
Much of the function of conference would be passed to the unrepresentative and unaccountable national Policy Forum.
Blair hopes that Party Conference will be a euphoric rally hailing the victorious leader and endorsing his every word (and electing his sidekick, Mandelson, to the NEC). He is obviously relying on those union leaders whose conferences passed ambiguous policy on the consultation document to persuade their delegations to support the rule changes on the basis of the sop he has made to them.
Blair may be right, but the indication from conference resolutions and even the opposition of MPs to arms sales to Indonesia, is that the ride might be rougher than he expects.
While there are many important 1ssues to challenge the leadership over at Party conference, such as benefits, welfare to work, the anti-union laws and arms sales, the question of Party democracy overshadows them because if these proposals are carried there will be little scope to change policy at future conterences.
Union and CLP activists should be pulling out all the stops between now and Party conference to ensure the changes are defeated. Pressure has to be brought to bear on delegates to ensure they carry out mandates in defence of the union-party link and wider party democracy.
The emergency meeting called by the Network of Socialist Campaign Groups on September 12 to stop the NEC rule changes is already receiving broad support in unions and constituencies - it is vital that all activists make it a priority.