Abolish the policy commissions!
Mark Boothroyd is the Left Unity organiser for Southwark.
As an activist committed to the Left Unity project, I have to voice my concerns and propose some radical measures in order to stop this entire exercise, which is so promising and could be so much, becoming diverted down a path which could lead to a loss of energy, radicalism, and a descent into stale electioneering which won’t be a credible answer to the fight against austerity and for an alternative to capitalism
I joined Left Unity as I believe that the development of a socialist political organisation is necessary in Britain. I, like so many thousands of others, responded to Ken Loach’s appeal because I saw an opportunity for such a project to emerge as tens of thousands of people grew disaffected with the Labour party and their unwillingness to oppose the austerity measures of the Tory government, and linked up with the tens of thousands of other already alienated from the political system by 13 years of privatisation and war.
The initial meetings of the local groups I participated in were promising, with an energy that is sadly missing from a lot of political work. There seemed potential to organise in a different way, to construct a socialist alternative to Labour from the bottom up, with participation from everyone in a democratic process which could draw in thousands opposed to austerity and alienated by the corrupt political system.
However this has been sapped as the promise of the possibility of doing things differently, of genuinely attempting to build a new left wing, socialist organisation from the bottom up slowly disappear.
I don’t locate the problem in any malicious intent by any of the people involved in the process, it is a fact of the different conceptions of the type of party we want to create, and the different methods of doing that. There are a myriad array of different political activists and tendencies involved in Left Unity. Ex-Greens, Trostkyists, socialist, communists, Labour Party members, social democrats, autonomists even some anarchists and a whole host in between. Creating a process that would satisfy everyone isn’t possible, but the direction that it has been taking is closing down the necessary space for debate, and taking the focus of debate and decision making away from where it needs to be, in the Left Unity branches and local organisations.
The policy commissions are the main example of this, and why I am proposing they are abolished, and debates on policy and principles returned to the branches. The policy commissions have taken the site of debate and discussion over the party’s principles and policies away from the branches and active members, fragmented them into areas which are somewhat arbitrary, and obscure linkages between them, and created a forum for developing policy which privileges the activists with most time and access to the internet.
I can completely understand peoples reason for wanting to get policy agreed and a credible political party set up in time for next years council and European Parliament elections. I disagree though that this should be our focus and that this is the best way to go about it.
The decision to reduce the timetable for the creation of the party from one year to 7-8 months is another factor partly resulting from this view, as it has attempted to squeeze what should have been a long process of debate and organising, into a to short time period in order to facilitate the creation of a party in time for next year’s elections. This reduced further the time and space to debate issues and come to mutual agreement on policy and principles, and lead to a rush to develop policy, before we had even established what the principles of the new party are, how it was going to operate, what it is for and what it’s goal is. Any policy debate should flow from these principles, and take place during and after their establishment, not be taking place before they have been agreed, or even discussed.
To declare my beliefs, for lack of a better term, I’m a class struggle socialist. I don’t believe capitalism can be reformed out of existence (although reforms are possible, see here for a campaign I’m involved in for mandatory staffing ratios in NHS hospitals: www.4to1.org.uk), I think it has to be overthrown and working people have to take control of their own lives, seizing power back from the corporations, banks, landlords, bosses and management which are wreaking such havoc on them at present. I think the fight for parliamentary power has to be subordinate to the fight to empower working people in their everyday lives, communities and workplaces so they are able to throw off this awful system and build a new world themselves.
To this end any new party has to be maximally democratic, open and participatory, and the construction of such a party must be so from the start. The path we are going down leads away from these principles, and we need to get back on track by removing the policy commissions, and committing to a debate around principles which is centred in the local branches and accessible to all members, establishing some democratic and participatory structures for the party, and getting on with a lot of organising in our areas to make sure Left Unity is an attractive project, open to all and actively engaged in campaigns and activity in the locales so that it supports active resistance to austerity, as well developing as a political home to those who want not just to end austerity, but to change the system as well.
I anticipate three arguments against my proposal:
- It’s urgent we create a new party
Yes it’s urgent, but it is also important we do it correctly. The last 10 years have been littered with political projects which were set up haphazardly, or without the necessary democratic structures and the correct orientation, and ended up dashed on the rocks. A fair amount of sectarianism and infighting played a role in this, which is precisely why the Left Unity project has to be so democratic, participatory and open, these are the strongest safeguards against individuals or groups abusing their positions or influence to harm the project.
We need a political alternative, but we need one which will last beyond the next election, and survive the tumultuous times that are sure to engulf Britain as austerity worsens. We have to do this properly and ensure that we get it right, not rushing into a set up which satisfies no one and cannot function because there isn’t some basic agreement about what the party is for, how it will function and what it’s goal is.
- We need to stand in elections so a new party must be fully formed by this date
Do we? Do we actually have to stand in elections by May 2014? I understand some members of Left Unity believe this should be a primary focus of the project, but we haven’t even had a serious discussion of what standing in elections would entail. Will Left Unity have the strength to give a strong showing in the council or Euro elections in 2014? I don’t believe so. Getting a credible vote in council elections will require months and years of patient work building support, demonstrating activists credentials in local campaigns and developing links with a working class which is massively dissatisfied with the status quo, but are not necessarily going to switch their votes overnight to an untried, untested political party which will only have been in existence 6 months. Likewise for the Euro elections, will we have the resources to stand candidates in every region, or will we have to limit it to certain areas? Standing in the Euro elections requires a deposit of £5000 per region. Will Left Unity have that amount of money by then, and would it be best spent on an election campaign which we could be smashed in?
One of the worst things that could happen is for our newly formed, fledgling Left Unity party to rush into the electoral process unprepared, expend a huge amount of energy and resources in the election, and receive a paltry vote. For those who are new to politics and participating for the first time, such an experience could be a factor which driving them away from the project, a situation we neither need nor want.
- This is what we agreed so we have to stick with it
No, we can change it. If we can’t then what sort of project is this? Is it under the control and answerable to the members who participate in local branches, and is there for amenable to whatever change they desire and democratically win the argument for. Or are we already locked into a course that only some of us agree with, and which there is considerable disagreement over? I like to think it is the former, and I hope comrades reactions to this article don’t demonstrate to me that it is the latter.
Some comrades may think this article hypocritical given I have volunteered to convene the health policy commission. This is not the case. I am convening the Health Commission precisely to show how this process can and should be done differently. My intention is for the Health Commission to develop a short policy/principles statement over August, which we can then circulate to all Left Unity branches to be discussed in their local meetings, allowing all members to participate in the formulation of policy and feedback their thoughts, suggestions and amendments regarding health. This I feel is the best way to ensure the development of Left Unity as a political organisation is as democratic and participatory as possible. I hope the other policy commissions follow suit.
31 comments
31 responses to “Abolish the policy commissions!”
Left Unity is active in movements and campaigns across the left, working to create an alternative to the main political parties.
About Left Unity
Read our manifesto
Left Unity is a member of the European Left Party. 
Read the European Left Manifesto
ACTIVIST CALENDAR
Events and protests from around the movement, and local Left Unity meetings.
Saturday 30th November: National March for Palestine
End the Genocide – Stop Arming Israel
Hands Off Lebanon – Don’t Attack Iran
Assemble 12 noon – central London
More details here
More events »
GET UPDATES
Sign up to the Left Unity email newsletter.
CAMPAIGNING MATERIALS
Get the latest Left Unity resources.
From my standpoint, this is a brave and thought-through call to reflection and corresponding action. I am not sure of what structures and order of things to propose… but do feel that the locals’ discussions, actions/campaigns and input into the creation of the Party are the priority. Of course The Commissions are not exactly evil things! But your suggestion of short statements made by the Commissions to be circulated and discussed by all members makes sense to me. I, too, feel a vital energy is being siphoned off into the Commission groups, who then become somewhat estranged from local membership who are left waiting for others to make policies to which they dont feel connected. Some very vital areas are not covered by the Commissions ( unless changed by now) … Welfare ( no convener) and Civil Liberties ( no group I believe). I also think we must put patient building of’ a socialist alternative to Labour from the bottom up, with participation from everyone in a democratic process which could draw in thousands opposed to austerity and alienated by the corrupt political system’ as priority, rather than hurried electioneering. Although the elections must make our voice heard and our existence felt.
Mark makes some pertinent points and I hope everyone takes them on board.
As someone who ‘volunteered’ to convene the ‘UK Constitution’ Policy Commission – I am aware that very few are involved let alone aware of the process surrounding the Policy Commissions. All I have done in this role is pose a series of 5 topic ‘questions’ on an separate [from this website] LU online Policy Commission Forum – to date no one is participating in this particular “UK Constitution” debate and I suspect only a handful of comrades in LU are aware of it.
There was some participation in the Policy Commission on Internal Democracy and Constitution which was convened by Richard Murgtatroyd and James Youd with ‘strand’ discussion thread published on this website. The overwhelming majority if not all of the participants in these discussion threads were male and the differences that emerged led to some fairly typical adversarial behaviour and an unnecessary polarisation of the debate.
In order to participate in these discussions you need to ‘register and log in’ with a via a ‘wordpress’ portal – the sort of hurdle that immediately cuts down the numbers participating and even then there were technical issues that kept some people out of the early days of the work of the Commission – which added to the sense that the process was not ‘inclusive’
On top of that the sort of polarisation that often occurs in virtual reality was made more problematical when participants in the Internal Democracy and Constitution Commission who do not know each other appeared to become easily defensive or mistrustful rather than open and comradely
Since the initial discussions on the Internal Democracy and Constitutional Commission Richard and James have produced a “working” document for “detailed consideration” but it appears that few people are now contributing to the discussion.
I myself have stopped contributing partly due to the somewhat ‘hostile’ responses my early contributions appeared to provoke and also because I feel the policy commission process is flawed.
I agree with Mark Boothroyd that we need to encourage and empower vibrant local discussions at the level of functioning Left Unity branches taking place in a real world environment.
The Left Unity project is pregnant with possibilities but we are at such an embryonic stage of development that we need to be very careful about the risks of triggering an early termination.
We can move towards some sort of founding membership and founding conference on the basis of some sort of draft constitution – but the policy commissions must be opened up to a much more widespread debate in local LU groups [where they exist] – so that all of us can truly take ownership of eventual decisions.
All of this does imply a longer gestation period and when the new infant party is born it would be wise to heed the warnings against rushing into contesting European Elections in 2014.
We all need to learn to crawl then walk before we can consider running.
Abu Jamal, you say :
“As someone who ‘volunteered’ to convene the ‘UK Constitution’ Policy Commission – I am aware that very few are involved let alone aware of the process surrounding the Policy Commissions. All I have done in this role is pose a series of 5 topic ‘questions’ on an separate [from this website] LU online Policy Commission Forum – to date no one is participating in this particular “UK Constitution” debate and I suspect only a handful of comrades in LU are aware of it.”
I can confirm that I was completely unaware of this “UK Constitution” Commission. (And I had thought I was paying attention – obviously not closely enough !) You didn’t, as far as I’m aware, even use the official LU site to invite participation in it – so why is it a surprise no-one is participating ! Are you an appropriate person anyway to convene such a debate, given your very minority views on a key aspect of the topic, ie, for Left Unity ONLY to be organising in England ? I think not.
Which does raise a more general point, that if the policy debates’ basic structural and policy issues aren’t firmly rooted in the branches, with the activist members, a lot of the “Policy Commission” recommendations – arrived at with often unrepresentative participation by many people with no political sympathy (and no real subs-paying or participatory connection) with the LU Project as requiring a new socialist party to the radical Left, of Labour, will simply be chucked out wholesale come the Party Conference – and replaced by policies developed by “Platforms” more “in sync” with majority opinion.
comrade John,
I am just as confused as you! And I invite everyone to participate in the ‘forum’ discussion on the UK Constitution via this thread which will of course reach all 9,000 signatories to Ken’s appeal in an instant!
I would send you a link to log on… except in the bucket full of stuff in my Hotmail in box I can’t find it at present… in any case I may have been mistaken about my role as ‘convenor’ of the ‘UK Constitution Commission’ as I picked up somewhere that someone from Huddersfield is now taking on this role via another equally mysterious process!
As for your opinion ” Are you an appropriate person anyway to convene such a debate, given your very minority views on a key aspect of the topic, ie, for Left Unity ONLY to be organising in England ? I think not.”
To be frank this is a misrepresentation of my stated political perspective…
I firmly believe that the Working Class in England need a New Political Party as a vehicle to fight for a fairer future without violence oppression and injustice…
I am against the United Kingdom as it is structurally a impediment and block to developing a genuinely democratic future for the peoples of these Islands to the North West of Europe and I am against both Kingdoms and Queendoms on principle.
If those who have signed up to Ken Loaches Appeal for a new ‘Left Party’ in Scotland and Wales wish to establish new parties of the Working Class in those countries I wish them well and look forward to close collaboration in the future.
If anyone in Northern Ireland has signed Ken’s appeal to form a new party of the Left then – I suggest they wake up and smell the coffee and stop wasting their time looking at political internet sites run by a bunch of lefties in London and do something more productive instead.
I am in favour of Nationally based Parties in England Wales and Scotland that are fighting for common goals of social and environmental justice alongside similar organisations in Ireland, Europe and Internationally.
You are probably correct to say that my views on this are ‘very minority views’ but this is only apparent in the very small confines of these restricted online discussion threads on this LU website.
Nevertheless, and notwithstanding your comments I will continue to argue for what I feel is the correct approach and have already via a tiny facebook group with only 45 ‘likes’ suggested the formation of a ‘Platform’ around the establishment of a new Party of the Working Class in England with the proposed name ‘People United’….. so far I am the only signatory to this platform. Obviously, if in the coming weeks no one else is interested in this ‘platform’ I will be proved to be in a very tiny minority… If you think my political perspective means I am not an ‘appropriate adult’ then no skin off my nose let the Huddersfield Comrades convene the Commission on the ‘UK constitution’.
very best unconditional positive regards from Bromsgrove
Agree with Mark though LU must absolutely make use of the electoral system to promote its programme and alert people to what it will do with power there is no power for working people via that route.
The policy commissions are mini-me versions of the undemocratic methods of the heavily bureaucratised reformist Labour Party. Policy should be coming through the branches but it should fit into an over-arching philosophy and manifesto/programme previously agreed by branch delegates at the founding conference in November. To that end the Manifesto Group will be circulating to all branches for discussion a manifesto for principled left unity, working class power and the transition to socialism it hopes they will support so that it can be passed at conference by resolution. Should it be passed of course all subsequent resolutions would then have to fit into this broaders framework or be ruled out unless of course they are not covered by the manifesto/programme.
Without the brief preamble and conclusion that it will need here are the main programmatic points for dicsussion:
1. Banks: end the bail out. State bank lending at base rate and facilitating social investment (greening of infrastructure, social housing, health, education etc) in accordance with a democratic plan.
2. Full employment immediately by sharing the available productive work. All school and college leavers and unemployed who cannot find their own jobs to be bought into the workforce with each paid the minimum of a trade union living wage.
3. Defend all necessary and desirable public services and welfare spending by collecting sufficient tax for the task.
4. Fight all forms of social oppression and inequality. Build anti-fascist militias to defend minority communities, demonstrations, picket lines, meetings, etc.
5. Socialise and democratise the cash-hoarding, profiteering monopolies and their enormous surpluses. Make them public property and subject their managers to election by their workforces as opposed to them being imposed by absentee bottom-line share holders or the Old School Tie Network and political patronage that treats UK plc as its own personal trough. Reverse all privatisations.
6. For a federation of sovereign British nations and the renegotiation of the founding treaties of the EU in accordance with socialist principles as opposed to the neo-liberal ones ripping it apart.
7. For a global commonwealth of nations and against imperialism.
As with I think everyone who has posted so far, I think it is simply foolish to consider entering LU into the electoral contest at any level in the near future. We haven’t even got any agreed policies yet !
And as is quite evident from the various online debates, not least around the Internal Democracy Policy Commission, in possible contrast to the branch based activist core of LU, the online posters surprisingly often seem to share no political sympathy with Ken Loach’s specific call for a new party to the Left of Labour. But then participation in LU’s online debates requires no other “commitment” than to register. And from direct knowledge quite a few of the online posters have no sympathy with the LU project at all. Constructing LU’s basic structures and policies surely should be restricted to subs paying MEMBERS. But then we haven’t even sorted that out yet !
I was actually unaware ( with most other supporters possibly ?) until now that there was a Policy Commission Forum site separate from this LU site. So thanks to Abu Jamal for pointing that out ! No wonder so few people have participated !
@JohnP
“I was actually unaware ( with most other supporters possibly ?) until now that there was a Policy Commission Forum site separate from this LU site.”
Yep, I found out two days ago. Colour me unimpressed.
In response to John Penney in particular: details of all proposed policy commissions and the guidelines were sent out to group organisers. As Hackney group organiser I then distributed details to all on our discussion list. IF THAT DIDN’t happen in your group that needs to be corrected. It would also have been advisable to put details up on the website earlier but that’s easily corrected. THESE are teething troubles and partly a result of having no full-full-time workers and an overworked core of volunteers.
THE Economics commission has only recently moved onto the new forum where it can be checked by anyone registered and as Salman says has already generated a very interesting and diverse of responses which would not emerge in a local group. What we need to ensure is wider participation nationally for many with specific experiences and knowledge who may not even have a local group which is viable. As Stuart notes all summary drafts will go out to local groups at some point for further debate and amendment. Let’s stick with it and correct the problems as we proceed. Pete Green
comrade John Penny – it seems that you are perhaps understandable fixated on the classic ‘chicken and egg’ paradox … someone somewhere somehow has to get things started and whatever hic ups and teething problems are encountered this is only to be expected when bold explorers are setting sale into uncharted waters… if we just hold our nerve who knows maybe we shall discover a new world and new possibilities.
I accept your Thanks for illuminating some of the mysterious alchemy of the Left Unity ‘process’… with the good grace I am famous for in a few streets in the Sidemoor ward in Bromsgrove.
Could you please post the address of that forum site? I had no idea. This is ridiculous.
“Some very vital areas are not covered by the Commissions ( unless changed by now) … Welfare ( no convener) and Civil Liberties ( no group I believe)”
no convenor came forward for benefits/social security?, this is shocking and like I have pointed out before appears to speak volumes of the priorities of the fledging party.
I’m sympathetic to what you’re saying, but I’d like to hear a bit more about how your alternative would work in practice. How are we going to manage to make the link between local groups discussing this and having a national discussion?
(I think we should separate the issue of how to decide policy from that of electoralism. The two are quite different. I’m not in favour of rushing into standing for election either, at least not until we’ve actually built a base in an area. I don’t see double-digit votes as a worthwhile objective).
I find the policy commissions refreshingly open and democratic. I think they are a vehicle for true bottom-up policy making, instead of pre-packaged policies behing handed down from a few leaders to conference to approve. In the economy commission we are seeing a healthy level of debate and some exciting ideas. Policy is best formulated at a national level, with people from all across the country participating. And people with certain interests and expertise and choose to join commissions they wish to share their ideas with. I’m very enthusiastic and am interested to see where these commissions take us.
I agree with all you say and was very worried when I heard “policy commissions” had been set up. I have since, and especially since the last NCG, been entirely reassured. These policy commissions are, I understand, to be open processes, and anything coming out of them will be circulated to branches for discussion and change, will be discussed (and voted on) by future national conferences, and even then will stay open as part of an ongoing process of discussion and policy making. I understood further that any individual joining Left Unity at any point in the future will still be able to join these and can play an active and determining role in decision (policy) making. That, in a word, we shall all follow the sound advice in your last paragraph. Is there not a contradiction between your advice in your final paragraph and your provocative headline? I agree with the former! Cheers
Hi Mark
Good points all round.
I especially agree with the points about the elections. I think it a mistake to rush for the elections in 2014. firstly, far to early for a newly founded organization with no base. Secondly, we should not be prioritizing elections over campaigning work.
As for the other points:
I am on one of the commissions from Sheffield. I did a brief lead-off of progress so far at our branch meeting last week, which led to a good initial discussion about the things we see as important. Sheffield members at the meeting certainly believe we need to be up front about our socialist aims.
I don’t think the commissions themselves are a problem – it is how we use them to involve wider layers that is important. Having commission proposals will certainly help when it comes to voting and amendments at a conference.
Fraternally
Lee
I’ve not heard anyone suggest we should rush to elections in 2014. In my view it would be a mistake to stand in the Euro elections.
Salman … maybe I misunderstood but there was a post by Will McMahon of the Independent Socialist Network on What Socialists should stand for in the 2014 Euro Elections… which suggests that some comrades are focusing on some sort of electoral intervention in 2014.
I agree with you that ‘it would be a mistake to stand in the Euro Elections’
I am not sure I agree that ‘I find the policy commissions refreshingly open and democratic. I think they are a vehicle for true bottom-up policy making, instead of pre-packaged policies behing handed down from a few leaders to conference to approve. In the economy commission we are seeing a healthy level of debate and some exciting ideas. Policy is best formulated at a national level, with people from all across the country participating. And people with certain interests and expertise and choose to join commissions they wish to share their ideas with. I’m very enthusiastic and am interested to see where these commissions take us.”
the ‘Policy Commissions’ have certainly started a process… and hopefully more people will engage with the process… but the layers of communication… e-mails… website posts…. word press log ins… separated ‘forum’ debates … it has all the potential to confuse and disorientate even the most alert and IT literate among us.
As some one involved in a variety of campaigns with a facebook and twitter profile who struggles with domestic responsibilities and family commitments and the daily grind of survival…. then to keep on top of this process is daunting…
You only have to miss out on a couple of communications to end up in a situation where you become out of the loop or misinformed or worse.
Abu Jamal, LU accepts pretty much all articles on its site, but the opinions are those of the authors and don’t represent those of Left Unity. I’ve not heard anyone on the NCG talking about standing in the Euro elections. Will is also in TUSC, so I think he was talking about socialists in general, not just LU. It’s far too early to say what elections, if any, LU will end up standing in, but I don’t think the Euros would be our strongest opening salvo.
I understand your concerns about the tech-heavy nature of the commissions. Even I get overloaded sometimes, and I’m at a computer most of the day. The technology is beneficial for bringing people together from across the country, but it’s not a substitute for face to face meetings, and I believe these will ultimately be the proving ground for policy formulation, in September and beyond.
Important debate this….it is about the permanent problem of democracy, which is that democracy cannot succeed in the absence of leadership….it requires both leadership and mass participation.
I am a bit surprised at Baton Rouge’s comments where he describes the policy commissions as “mini-me versions of….(etc)..” and then goes on to announce that the Manifesto Group “will be circulating…(etc)…” without any hint of recognition of the inconsistency between these two comments.
What makes the Manifesto Group any more legitimate than the Policy Commissions??
Anyway, lets not fall out over that….the fact is that the Manifesto Group has just as much a role to play in providing leadership to LU as the Policy Commissions have the potential to do if they are properly constituted and run.
Policy cannot be designed by a crowd but it can be subjected to the scrutiny of everyone and approved, amended or rejected by democratic process.
I have been a participant in the Environment group which is struggling to find a sense of real direction. I think the problem is that the Policy Commissions have not been established with a properly defined remit and set of objectives to work with. These are necessary to scope out the policy areas that need to be developed by the participants. Part of the process at the outset will probably require an initial period of reading and research with participants making recommendations on material of relevance and interest to the group, before embarking on a more focussed discussion of embryonic proposals for further development.
As many contributors to this debate have said this is going to take quite a bit of time, especially since most participants are not full time researchers or policy makers.
I agree whole heartedly that there is too much rush to form LU into a political party with a fully developed set of policies and a program for action….that is going to take time, a lot of time. Unless that is done LU WILL become a top down, command and control political organisation….it might then like to comfort itself with the notion of “democratic centralism” but that is a model of socialist party organisation that has a legacy of historical failure. LU must aim to build something NEW.
Jim, I agree with you that some direction needs to be given in each group. But I think this is also part of the teething problems mentioned earlier in this thread. I’m not so bothered that we don’t have fully fleshed out policies in time for whatever electoral strategy we decide to embark on. I know that I became frustrated when our branch tried a local version of debating a whole range of policies on our facebook page because some of us were just talking from our own limited experiences of an issue rather than being informed of various possibilities and then being able to debate the pros and cons of each. I think that if discussion on policy is only at branch level, this might be what ends up happening. On a national level, via an electronic forum, at least people can present reasoned things for us to consider, or read about, and then debate. If commissions have proposals to eventually put forward, maybe these need to go back to branches for refinement and amendments for the September policy discussion meeting.
I also saw on the Internal Democracy commission that there was some debate (alluded to by Abu here), but that debate was no reflected in the Statement eventually drawn up for consideration at the November conference. I would much prefer any such statements to reflect the discussion, allowing members to decide which way things should eventually go.
On the issue of remit and objectives the first thing to say is read the guidelines which came from the working group on policy commissions set up out of the June NCG (and which I helped to draft along with Richard from Huddersfield). What these do not do specify the precise scope of each commission. On the Economics discussion for example I had to suggest that detailed proposals on housing should go to the housing commission. There will also be overlaps between the Economy and the Environment and we will need to ensure they do not clash – but I Don’t believe that will be difficult.
As for the forum you get in via volunteering to participate in at least one commission but can then view them all. At the moment only 3 of those on the forum have any activity with the Economics forum way ahead. Other forum convenor s will hopefully shift onto the forum as well but this may take time. And we do have time despiteclaims by Mark and other’s. Since the June NCG passed the Hackney motion on this only commissions on party structure and anti-racism have to report in November with the rest having until 2014. This is a three-stage process: a S
September policy workshop conference without votes; the November 28 founding conference; and a further policy making conference early in 2014. Much less of a rush than on the original proposal (unless it gets changed again!) Pete Green
O
To an extent, I agree with the original article and all the three responses so far. But only to an extent. My observation is that the call to join or convene the different policy commissions was not advertised sufficiently. And the process for signalling an interest in participating in one had an unnecessary step — that we had to email to say which commission we wanted to join, rather than have a forum (as is now possibly possible). If a member missed reading that bit of the email, or is a procrastinator of sorts, or just needed time to reflect on which commission they would be best suited, it would appear that they are not “on” a commission. And since some of the commissions are going to discuss their topic via email, no one other than those few who signed up can look in to see if there is anything they would like to contribute to the topic. There are only over 100 people the list of members who officially signed up to participate on the various commissions. This certainly is not representative democracy. And as for the one commission to kick off, only about a dozen people participated, and as Abu Jamal says, they were all men (mostly, I think Melanie made a contribution at one point).
But, unlike Mark Boothroyd, I don’t think we should abolish the commissions: I just think they need a relaunch and need to be all on a forum where anyone can sign up to participate in that commission. I like the idea of policies being discussed at branches, but I don’t think this needs to be done at the exclusion of an online discussion. What’s being discussed online can be read prior to a branch meeting, discussed and someone can post up the branch’s ideas, consensus about the topic.
SuzanneG. I concur.
Thanks very much for this heartfelt contribution, Mark.
As you may know, I don’t agree that “It’s urgent we create a new party”, but do agree that whatever organisation is formed, “it is also important we do it correctly.” This rush is not right at all – we have rushed at things before and where has it got us?
Agree also: No, we don’t “have to stand in elections by May 2014”, or 2015, as others have said. Surely we want to do things differently than the left has done – and failed – before? Surely we want to learn from our past mistakes? It appears that some don’t. I strongly urge all of you to question their motives.
The most disturbing thing is that – under what mandate? – LU has begun talks with TUSC …
There has been a lot of debate on this site about elections – check out the one back in April, for example. Unfortunately, a lot of it repeats itself, as people haven’t had the time or inclination to track back – but it is worth it on this one.
I’m with Hoom, what is the point of using up lots of energy and getting tiny votes? That puts a touching faith in the current massively flawed electoral process, which eg. over 70% of voters in Doncaster recently ignored. The greatest prize of electioneering is to organise and enthuse a big chunk of that 70%, nationally; but that will take time and sensitivity to the profound disillusion with politics of most of that proportion of people.
Meanwhile, there are campaigns to fight and win.
If LU people insist on becoming a party, 2020 is the earliest one to go for – and even that will be a challenge – and only if we have built our organisation and political practice to the extent that we ‘deserve’ to, and local people expect us, to stand.
good debate which illuminates problems of democracy that the current devices of social media cant fix. we are human and respond to social situations. debate via internet is different.
i cant make saturday afternoon lu meetings, so im trying to participate through national website. i know a number of the people involved locally and ive known them a long time. we mostly fell out over important differences of political action and whether to avoid compromising your political line to get left bureaucrats on board.
the policy commission internet discussions are ok, but really why not have a thread on main site. why not allow free access to read and contribute in debate.
of course left unity needs to convince supporters to join up, contribute some money etc but that should be the emphasis. left unity has to convince activists / people to sign up. how can left unity though say you cant see our debate or contribute till you join. why would it want people not to see debate?
left unity needs to emphasise democracy – its the breakdown of democratic practice that has been the major scurge of left parties.
left unity needs to break the mold, relearn and focus on best democratic practice.
pleased that platforms are forming and we see a more focussed idea of different emphasis of people in left unity.
awaiting workers powers action programme with interest.
i think the groups inside left unity should hold their discussions in public, or within the left unity website. rumours of fusion talks should be within the left unitys orbit. it is exactly for the purpose of unity that lu has been formed. if lu brings a centrist fusion of left and proto left groups, well then it has served a purpose. i think the fusion proposal documents should be posted on left unity site.
a debate before the left not behind closed doors. . hi ya abu jamal – you should tell the lefy unity people about Mumia!
pete b
Trouble posting this. Must be caught in your spam filter and I know you don’t look there:
Hi Jim: I don’t think there is an inconsistency in the Manifesto Group’s position. We want an integrated, coherent principled manifesto/programme for the transition to socialism as the overarching framework for all LU’s work in elections and the class struggle. We want that programme/manifesto debated throughout the branches prior to November so that every body has a chance to suggest amendments additions etc and then when and if democratically adopted at the November conference for no amendments contradicting it to be passed. It will be constantly up for discussion, tweaking, amending, adding to, taking away from even ditching should things change in a way so dramatic that nobody ever could have forseen it by the party itself and the leadership will be obliged to demonstrate how they are pursuing its realisation.
Compare that to a load of disparate, unconnected policies that can be traded for influence and you have what looks like ultra-democracy but is in fact a leadership allowed to do what the hell it likes as in the sects or indeed New Labour.
I am having the devil’s own job trying to take part in the internal democracy commission site/forum.
I have subscribed, and I have a password but all I get is returned to the main blog which tells me I need to subscribe.
I am not as young as I was, but I am not an idiot, but how do I take part in this!!!
OK Baton Rouge I see where you are coming from as regards the role of the Manifest Group. It is vital that there is a source of leadership which frames the principles and philosophy on which the policies and programme of LU are to be built. Agreed that if that is done it will provide direction to Policy Commissions and Branches and support a democratic and participatory process of policy development.
That kind of sets the immediate agenda for all current debate within LU at this juncture…all attentions and efforts need to be focussed on developing the founding manifesto of LU.
Turning to that debate then, although BR has not set out the complete proposal by the Manifesto Group
he has given a flavour of it. My observation on that is that it looks very much like the manifesto of a party of protest or opposition. It expresses more of what “we are against” than “what we are for”.
The left needs to move beyond being a protest movement with an agenda that is actually framed by the status quo and to which the manifesto is a reaction….socialists need to set out a vision of a new society and describe its institutions, laws, democratic structures and processes, and so on….in other words define our own agenda.
For me these are not empty words because I have already made a serious attempt to do just that….. set out a vision of what a decentralised, community based, participatory democracy could look like and what its economy might look like…it is in the form of a manifesto for “Building a New Scotland” and is a contrbution to the debate in Scotland about independence and what Scotland might become after independence……many of the themes however, are of broader relevance to the UK as a whole.
I am sure that it wont fit with the views of some sections of LU who have fairly rigid and dogmatc ideas of what socialism is but it is genuine effort to describe a socialist form of society and I will defend it vigorously on that basis.
I offer it as a contribution to the Manifesto Group’s task of formulating a manifesto for LU and I am quite prepared to spend as much time as is needed to explain any part of it to members of the MG who are interested in constructive engagement. An earlier version of BaNS can be found on the Reid Foundation’s Scottish Common Weal website in the Library. It is still a work in progress so if anyone wants the most recent version email me at jim.osborne@talk21.com…..there is a completely new section on pensions which is not in the earlier version as well as other more minor additions/revisions.
Will someone “in the know” please post up the address of this mysterious separate Policy Commissions site ?
http://forum.leftunity.org/main/
Yes, we def. need the Policy Commissions Forum address
In fact, it would be good to post up all developments in one place eg Left Party Platform, Manifesto, Socialist Platform etc
if we’re debating policy commission ideas we should be debating the other things too