It is clearly imperative that we have a change of style. If GC meetings
continue in the same fashion as the last one, members will get fed up,
they will not bother to come, we will have inquorate meetings and the
slippery slope of decline will be irreversible until new delegates are
appointed.
At the moment we have a surfeit of false democracy. I say false for
the obvious reason that as nothing very much is ever done by the,
bureaucratic structure (as opposed to by the individual actions of a
small elite), there is no reality in any control structure. You can not
have control if nothing is done. It is like having a radio control for a
model aeroplane and no model aeroplane.
When, for example, there is a window broken at The Grange. George
Saville fixes it (possibly with help from one or two others) . If George
doesn't fix it then it won't get fixed. It doesn't matter how many
resolutions GC passes, that is the fact.
Look at the education group under Jean Teague. Was there less passion
or firm intent when GC set up this committee than when it set up
the 'political organisers' committee. Of course there was no difference
in the GC motions. But Denise Liunberg was far more experienced than
Jean and she worked far harder. So Denise's committee worked, Jean's
didn't.
The truth is that the GC manages nothing. A small number of highly
dedicated individuals do everything that is done. Even the way they do things is determined by their personalities and not by GC. For example, Denise is gregarious and tends to work with groups. I am not gregarious
and tend to do things on my own. George is also a bit of a loner, or at
least to put it another way he prefers to do things instead of talking about
them.
The penalties of working the way we work at the moment include; ---
* lack of priorities, some things get done quite well while other things are not done at all, for example Chris Duran was allowed to
be agent at the Walt ham Forest Council election when he had no phone,
car or idea of what he was supposed to do (this experience did not help
Chris and we may have lost a valuable party worker as a result).
* Chaos. As there is no clear and definitive direction, nobody knows
what the issues are and everything is argued with the same vehemence
and lack of clarity. I am not a fool but I find myself making passionate -
speeches at GC on phoney issues because I can not gauge the way things
are going and therefore have to argue every dot and comma even though
the whole thing may subsequently be swept away.
*Duplication. The EC has arguments, these arguments are repeated at
GC. No doubt similar arguments go on at the political organiser's
committee. This is rather boring for those who have to attend.
*Lack of leadership. This is similar to the chaos I mentioned before.
Because there is no clear direction the folk out there who are learning
about the GC , EC, LGC , LGC EC and all the rest of the alphabet soup
find that there is no reliable lead. There is no point to fix onto in a
shifting universe. This must be disorientating for them. It also does
not inspire confidence.
A POSSIBLE ANSWER
To achieve real democracy we have to give the membership a basis for
discussion. This would give the membership the right to have a real
say in what was going on. It would also give the membership the right
to challenge us, even to unseat us if they thought we were not doing
our jobs. At present there is so much confusion that no officer will
be unseated if he/she continues to attend some meetings.
I believe that the five 1987 officers of the CLP, chair, two vice chairs,
treasurer and secretary, should act as a block. Not a block tied to one
political philosophy, but a block which believes passionately in good
administration. The politics of efficiency.
This block could meet the day before GC meetings and determine the line it would push. It could, but I do not believe it would work. There would be too much suspicion.
But there is one body, including the five mentioned officers,
which does meet regularly. This body is the executive committee. So
far as I know there is no reason why the executive should not meet on the
day before the GC. There is no reason why the main function of the EC should
not be to determine a framework for the GC. And there is no reason why
all EC members, including the five officers, should not be compelled
to vote and speak in favour of the agreed consensus.
In the past EC has tended to meet mid way between GCs on the ground that it would provide a forum for emergency decisions. In fact,
for one reason or another, the EC has not taken emergency decisions.
These decisions are taken by the 1987 officers over the telephone wires.
The EC has also been charged with examining applications from new
members. I believe that my new method of membership election (viz.,
listing the new applicants on agendas) is so much more efficient than the
old that this is no longer a function which the EC needs to perform.
I propose that the EC should meet to discuss the GC agenda on the night
before GC meetings. It should look at all the problems. It should recommend
that the GC take certain courses of action (when there is a clear
agreement among EC members) and it should agree to push those
lines. Members would only be entitled to act in a contrary way to the EC
decision if mandated to do so by their branch.
The EC should also prioritise. EC should be the sort of body
that does not shut up shop at 10 pm with business outstanding. It
should be the duty of EC to make decisions. It should be the duty o f EC
to prioritise. EC should have the right to divert activity
from successful but low importance activity to more vital activity.
Further, it should be made clear to the GC that if it does not complete
business then the policy laid down by EC will be deemed to have been
agreed on issues not discussed.
GC meetings should be much more efficiently organised. For example
we should not go through EC reports sent to delegates
days before GC meetings point by point. We should merely say, EC
minutes, any questions or comments?. The questions
should be dealt with swiftly (and with a united front amongst EC members)
and we should then move onto next business swiftly. EC should lay down
the method of considering business and should back the chair if there is
any challenge.
EC should determine how long reports should last (e.g. 10 minutes for GLC, 15 minutes Parliamentary report). ECs views on timing should be put to GC at the start of the meeting. If it is agreed the chair should enforce this timing and invite members with questions to take them up with the presenter of the report after GC.
EC should discuss motions tabled and consider whether
they should be taken together (if they are mutually contradictory,
for example) separately, or how they should be dealt with. EC
could make recommendations about motions.
All papers , motions and material can be made available for the
EC on the Thursday before GC. The only technical problem could
be that meetings could clash with council meetings.
It seem s to m e that the choice is between management and chaos. The rules and standing orders of Leyton CLP do not allow
sufficient discipline to be imposed on the GC to allow any chair
to get through the business every meeting. Only the determination
of a group of people like the officers and other members on EC
could provide a sufficient force to change the character of the GC.
If we really believed in Athenian democracy we would invite every
single party member to come and make the decisions at constituency
meetings. The fact is that we accept the need for representative
democracy. Add to that the fact that we are already used to being
mandated to vote in a certain way by our branch
and I think you will see that this does not cut across our tradition.
People do not come to the GC for their health, because they enjoy it,
because of the glory; they come because they think it is important. If
it s 1987s being important, or s1987s being able t o do anything about
anything, they will drift away. My belief is that a strong organising
EC will make the GC more important because they will have put before
them priorities, choices and the full amount of information available (for agendas will be completed). They will then get the chance to accept the EC line or argue for changes (mind
you it has to be admitted that if they do that too powerfully and too often
it will screw up the system as surely as the system is screwed up now) .
As a bonus it would also mean that we could react faster. We could
formulate policy on issues like the falling school roll s in time to
have a quorate LGC. Motions could be considered within 8 weeks maximum.
Jonathan Brind
July 1983
