Energising Labour’s membership

Every time Labour loses more than two elections in a row they are written off as doomed to eternal failure. In a widely read, and very influential piece in the periodical Maxism Today, published in 1978, the “Marxist” historian and Communist Party member Eric Hobsbawm described how the forward march of Labour had been halted.

The Labour vote had been declining because the old assumptions that the working class would always vote Labour were no longer true. The Labour vote was declining as was trade union militancy. Membership of the party was declining. Labour, was doomed and although Hobsbawm never said they could never win an election again, it was clear that he felt the party could only win by substantially changing the way it oriented itself. His analysis seemed to be validated by the 1983 election in which the party led by left-winger and self-declared peace-mongerer Michael Foot was decidedly rejected at the ballot box. The present day parallels are not hard to see.

But, as Mark Twain once remarked on reading his own obituary “reports of my death have been greatly exaggerated”. Not only did Labour win in 1997, it also won in 2001 and 2005. It came within 2,000 votes of winning again in 2017. There is nothing inevitable about Labour losing.

But, as true as that is, and accepting as I have suggested previously, that the Conservatives have a built-in advantage in the current system, the ability of Labour to win is as much (if not more) about whether the Conservatives lose as anything Labour actually does. If I were Sir Keir I would be less concerned about debates on the left of the party than the fact that despite their obvious incompetence the Tories are still a clear 10 points in the lead according to opinion polls.

All this is by way of introduction to a recognition that for all our successes in the past couple of years, the left need to carefully consider how we go about the business of being Labour Party members and how we use our membership to promote socialist values and policies.

It is easy to argue against the carefully thought out plans of others as I did last week. Far more difficult to put forward a constructive way forward of your own. So, over the next few weeks that is precisely what I am going to try to do. Last week I argued that sidling up to the establishment (as part of a plan for Labour renewal) could only backfire. It is as likely to lead to a loss of support and credibility amongst Labour voters as it is to win over Tory voters who seem, at least currently, fairly enamoured of their first team. However, as was pointed out to me by Anne Laird (read her excellent response to my critique of Rose Shillito here), in my enthusiasm for disagreeing with the plan, I under-estimated the importance of the role of re-energising a membership which still stands at 550,000.

The role of members is absolutely vital and one of the problems with Labour is that it has tended to see its members as passive consumers of policies and commitments rather than active creators of those policies. 

Much of course depends on how members, ex-members and potential members view the party apparatus. One of the most inane ice-breakers used in political focus groups asks respondents to describe the party as if it is a car. But regardless of its inanity the metaphor is useful. If the Labour Party is a car then the problem for those who want to change direction is simply one of who is in the driving seat. More importantly it is one of leadership, both the actual leadership and all the supporting roles. What this means for the left is that we tend to spend an inordinate amount of time trying to grab the wheel, as it were, without realising that the mechanics have fixed the vehicle so that it always has an annoying tendency to lurch to the right.

Besides, I’m not sure that a car is the best metaphor, perhaps Labour is more like a train. An underground train. Perpetually caught going round and round in circles, doomed to forever repeat the mistakes of the past over and over again.

Where do the members fit in to all this? Labour membership entails little more than filling in a form, generally online these days, and agreeing to pay a membership fee, usually by direct debit. What is obvious is that it is not necessary to have actually spoken to another living person to do so. You see Sir Keir on TV, you are inspired by his oratory and you fill in your form (and yes there is a hint of sarcasm in there somewhere). There is no requirement to even attend a single meeting, to deliver a single leaflet or to canvass a single door. Indeed, joining Labour does not even entail you having to have any particular socialist leanings, although the rules do not allow you to support another party at election time.

What this means is that people join the party for a variety of reasons and with a range of pre-conceived ideas ranging from believing Labour is a vehicle for revolutionary change to hoping Labour will help sort out the rubbish in their street. Some people’s membership is a means to a potential career, for others a means of meeting like-minded individuals, for others akin to a charitable donation and for others a way of acquiring political skills. There are plenty of other reasons which inspire people to join.

Party activists are a minority of the membership

Once inside the Labour Party and in possession of a membership card, new members are left to decide for themselves what level of activity they are able to commit to the party. For those who enjoy the cut and thrust of meetings there are plenty of committees, sub-committees and working groups to get involved with. For those who are looking for a place to debate politics and to learn about socialism the opportunities can be more restricted. 

Some people join the party and devote most of their “political time” to their trade union, or to other campaigns, leaving little time for Labour, especially between General Elections. The commitment to Labour, then, is variable. Those who like to run for office tend to assume that everybody has that particular mindset, and often fail to realise that they are the anomalies not those who see running for office as something other people do.

It is difficult to understand why people join a political party but then do not engage with it. In the most recent leadership election only 72.4% of eligible members actually voted. In other words over 150,000 people who could have voted failed to do so. In the Deputy leader election, where the left actually stood a better chance of success, only 68.75% of members voted. With the NEC elections looming it will be interesting to see the turnout.

Of course, none of this has anything to do with socialism, or for that matter even challenging the Tories. It is simply a reminder that having a mass membership means very little if those members are largely passive. My branch has over 400 members yet the average branch meeting struggles to get more than 15 members to turn up. Despite this the Branch has positions for over 30 officers, none of whom, according to the minutes, gave a single report in the previous 12 months. My point is that branch life in many Labour Party branches is effectively moribund.

There are a number of possibilities here. One is that people joining the party are too busy fighting for socialism elsewhere to get involved in branch life. The other is that joining the party is as much “fighting” for socialism as many people are going to do. The reality is probably somewhere in between. But, one thing that is obvious in my own branch and CLP is that the majority of active members, meaning those that turn up, do not see the struggle for socialism as anything they need to worry about in the immediate future. I am a member of only one branch so I would certainly be interested to hear if other people have different (or similar) experiences.

I agree with those who argue that we need to re-energise the membership. With over half a million members, that is a huge resource just sitting there. As I’ve said not everybody who joins wants to be an ‘activist’. I suspect at least partly because what they have heard of activists will not have been complimentary. On the other hand, it is likely that most people who join Labour do want to change society. Most members, including those on the right of the party, can see that our current social arrangements could be improved so that they work for everyone. It was perhaps one of the wiser moves of the Corbyn era to adopt the slogan (first used by Blair incidentally): for the many, not the few.

But, a pithy slogan and clever PMQ’s performance really is no substitute for an active, engaged and passionate membership. Why then has the Labour Party been so poor at energising it’s own members. Passive membership is almost sewn into the very fabric of the party. Activists tend to be suspicious of new members, never sure whose side they are on. Rather than welcoming and encouraging them new members are largely left to find their own way into the party.

Party membership is not actually this exciting - why not?

Both left and right see members as, essentially, a stage army to be wheeled out for elections. There was certainly a desire within the Corbyn leadership to involve members more, but it often ran into a brick wall at local level where the right were actively pursuing a counter-revolution against the left take over of “their” party. Left activists, whether knowingly or not, can see activism, and by default credibility, as a measure of how busy a person appears to be. Simply taking up a position that nobody else wants can give you esteem, which is correspondingly denied to those who are not interested in such positions. I have taken positions in the past, and don’t have any desire to do so now. Does this make me a bad member? My commitment to socialism has not waned, but the energy I have to pursue that commitment certainly has. Which is why I honestly think that the Labour Party has to change to be more welcoming to younger people who want more than a lot of boring meetings and elections to posts which then achieve nothing.

Will we see Sir Keir get this reception?

So, what is to be done? The most important ingredient in energising members is to give them something to be excited about. I can’t speak for others but personally the feeling I get from Sir Kier is one of boredom, rather than the excitement that was generated by the previous leadership. I cannot see Glastonbury welcoming Sir Keir with the same enthusiasm as Jeremy, can you?

But in the absence of strong leadership this means that the induction of new members has to be the responsibility of local activists. When I first joined the Labour Party many years ago I was the only new member in our ward. We were largely stagnant in terms of growth and it was only my enthusiasm that put me in touch with other members, some of whom turned into life long friends. But, according to my current CLP officers 300 people have joined my local party in the past 4 months. That is a lot of people. 

Obviously, social distancing prevents any face to face events and some of those members will be happy to remain paper members. But the left is no better than the right at encouraging the participation of new members. For example, do we know the Twitter, Facebook and Instagram accounts of all existing left members? Yet, surely this is a relatively easy way to contact new members. Perhaps such basic means of putting people in touch is happening and I just haven’t been invited.

Does anybody phone new members for a welcome chat? Joining a political party is a daunting experience. It is up to those of us already in the party to ensure that new members are made to feel welcome and comfortable. This must involve political discussion, both formal and informal. It also means accepting that new members may not arrive as the finished article. They may well have beliefs and ideas which many of us have moved on from or been challenged over. In making members welcome we must allow space for their growth and not impose our, hopefully, more sophisticated understanding of issues to become a means to drive them out. 

Energising members is not simply what the members can do for the party (canvassing, leafleting, taking positions, attending meetings etc) but what we can do for those new members. I can well recall my own journey from Tory-hater to socialist. It wasn’t without moments of anguish as my views were gently challenged by people who became friends and shouted down by people who became, if not enemies, certainly not friends.

Activity in the party should not be reduced to attending meetings where little is decided and canvassing for manifestos in which you have made little input. Ideas are the lifeblood of politics yet they are almost entirely absent from Labour life. It is certainly the case that many members are waiting to be told if not necessarily what to think, what to think about. If we want members to put themselves out and give up their time at election times we have to find ways of involving them in the decision-making not only of what is in the manifesto, but at every level of the party. To be honest, I’ve read my fair share of boring, stodgy, bureaucratic documents and I would add to those most policy documents that I have seen.

I have certainly seen and heard people being dismissive of passive members who don’t turn up or vote. But, I wonder how many of those doing the complaining have gone out of their way to be welcoming to members, and to encourage them to take part. And, I don’t mean sending out a mass email telling them that these things are important.

I am not suggesting here that I have all, or even any, of the answers. What I suspect is that there is an issue with involving members in a meaningful way. This arms length approach to members is embedded in the culture of the party. People can, if they are forceful enough, push through this to become active members, but many are waiting for just a small sign of encouragement. The current leadership seem to be wary of any democratic involvement of the membership and whilst complaining about that might be therapeutic, it leaves ordinary members isolated and potentially disillusioned. If the Labour Party is to be a genuine member-led organisation then it has to change. If the leadership don’t want or won’t support that change that does not prevent us working on a different culture at a constituency level, or in left organisations associated with the party.