It should be obvious to anyone with an ounce of political savvy that, if an opportunity is attractive enough, the competition is likely to be rather more aggressive, and potential applicants more likely to 'stretch the envelope' of what is allowable. And, given the likelihood of anything other than a Labour win in Falkirk in 2015, the possibility of being the next MP for the seat is attractive, especially as, once selected, the candidate isn't going to have to work as hard as his/her counterpart in a marginal seat. The fact that it's a job for life is not a factor, I'm sure...
So, you have motive. And, as any good detective will tell you, what you now need is opportunity. If it is the case that an affiliated union can pay the membership subscriptions for the Labour Party on behalf of its members, and said union wants more influence over the direction of said party, what happens next is only too predictable.
And, as long as said union, and said party leadership, are seeking broadly the same thing, and there is competition between unions with differing perspectives, it's not ideal, but it's tolerable. However, with the emergence of a small number of 'super-unions', the diversity of voices has been lost and the ability to obtain disproportionate influence has grown.
It is harder to gain that influence if a Local Party is active, attractive to potential new members, and has a vibrant and inclusive internal democracy. Sadly, we know that the Labour Party has a record of not really encouraging that sort of thing, and that all three traditional major parties have seen dramatic falls in membership over the past two decades.
Thus, stripped of all defences, it is far too easy for UNITE to effectively buy parliamentary candidate selections. I don't criticise them for doing so, as they feel that it is the most effective way in which to achieve their goals, but I am critical of a party leadership who have apparently allowed this to happen and then whined about the result of their failure.
A political party's internal democracy is only as good as the rules that safeguard it. And, whilst our internal rules can be labyrinthine and annoying, they are intended to be a force for good. They are, of course, only as good as the people who apply and enforce them, and Liberal Democrats need to train and develop a small, part-time volunteer bureaucracy to carry out such key functions.
But, the price of proper internal democracy is eternal vigilance...
2 comments:
Actually, both Falkirk seats were won by the SNP in 2011 with over 50% of the vote in each case. Labour are far from a shoe-in there.
However, your point stands that membership-packing goes on in other parties including the Lib Dems and vigilance is needed. It can be very difficult to prove when something untoward is going on because those who hold the membership lists do so under the cloak of secrecy provided by data protection. Perhaps you could tell us what rank and file party members can do or who they should approach (David Allworthy?) to have the rules enforced if they think something is happening that should not be happening in their area?
Anonymous,
If you're in the middle of a candidate selection, the first person to talk to is the Returning officer, as they can respond immediately.
otherwise, the Local Party is empowered to consider all new membership applications and may refuse them within a set time limit. This should act as a protection against entryism, although it is only as effective as the Executive Committee is.
If that doesn't work, your next stop is, in England at least, your Regional Party. They can step in if there are legitimate concerns.
I hope that this helps.
Therwise,
Post a Comment