Welcome to Left Unity’s Policy Commission on internal democracy, party structure and constitution

17 comments

17 responses to “Welcome to Left Unity’s Policy Commission on internal democracy, party structure and constitution”

1. John Penney says:

   July 9, 2013 at 4:53 pm

   I’ll start this important, indeed vital, discussion process off then – focussing , as suggested in the intro. on the Strand 1 , already much discussed – but completely unresolved, core issues of our Basic Principles, ie, What does Left Unity stand for ? And the Basic Party form.

   For me, a basic , “What We stand For” statement should say something like:

   For Left Unity our central guiding principal is that the entire purpose of society should be to deliver a fulfilling, secure and rewarding life to as many of our citizens as possible, regardless of gender, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or age. We reject the current structure and ethos of society in which we, the overwhelming majority of citizens, are only deemed to exist to further the interests and profitability of a collection of competitive businesses, and their owners, the richest 10% who own and control most of the wealth in our society.

   To transform our society for the better for the majority we have the following basic aims;

   1. To work with every organisation and group and individual possible to oppose the entire range of cuts and privatisations the “austerity agenda” contains. We reject the idea that ordinary working people should pay the price for a crisis entirely produced by the speculative gambling of the bankers in particular, and the greed and irresponsibility of the rich and their capitalist system in general.

   2. To build a new radical , internally and externally democratic, mass membership party and movement of the Left to create an electoral challenge at local and national , and EU, levels to the existing “austerity” implementing, pro capitalist, parties, including New Labour. Our party representatives will never vote for cuts at local or national levels which damage the living standards of ordinary working people, and will only draw a salary equal to the average national wage whilst serving in any office.

   3. To work together to eventually create a better, fairer, democratic, society, based on democratic socialist principles, eg:

   a. Economic Equity: An equitable and just sharing of the resources of our society – requiring a progressive taxation and a major income and wealth re-distribution policy.

   b. Public Ownership and democratic control for the general public good: A society in which the major industries and utilities and public services , in particular the banking sector and health and education, and all the “natural monopolies”, are in public ownership and under democratically accountable control.

   c. Free Education and Healthcare and Pensions: the provision of free healthcare and education , and generous pension provision from the cradle to the grave as a basic right

   d. Housing; the right of all citizens to be adequately housed ; requiring a major social housing building and refurbishment and energy efficiency improvement programme to increase and upgrade the current housing stock, and also create tens of thousands of construction jobs.

   e. Individual Opportunity and equity: A society fully committed to achieving a fulfilling and equitably rewarded life for all individuals regardless of gender, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation or disability.

   f. Environmental sustainability: Building a society based on the principles of environmental sustainability, requiring a massive shift to more sustainable technologies and less wasteful consumption patterns.

   g. Full Employment: A society committed to creating worthwhile, fulfilling, equitably rewarded, jobs for all citizens. Requiring a radical shift of our current economic “sectoral mix” , away from financial services towards a much proportionately bigger , but environmentally sustainable, manufacturing sector.

   h. Internationalism: We will seek to build mutually beneficial links with our brothers and sisters all over the world, as part of a much longer struggle to create a co-operative world community based on mutual aid and equitable world trade between equals.

   If you share our ambitious radical socialist aims we invite you to join us in building a new political movement working to bring truly radical change to our country, as part of the worldwide struggle for freedom , justice, and equality, by people just like us, in a wide range of similar parties and movements across our world.

   Secondly: Who can be a member ? I propose that membership be open to anyone who agrees with the , eventually agreed, Basic Principles of Left Unity, with two categories of exception; 1.Persons who are members of fascist or racist or other groups advocating discriminatory practices or policies at odds with Left Unity’s principles. 2. Persons proven to have behaved in a manner or advocated policies or attitudes at odds with Left Unity’s principles.

   Thirdly: OMOV or federation of groups ? I think it is vital that Left Unity is a party based centrally upon individual, subs-paying , members. Membership should be open to members of other groups who agree with Left Unity’s Basic Principles to join, but on an individual basis. The factional organising rights of organised groups within Left Unity will be recognised and supported as a normal part of its internal democratic life. As an individual membership based party Left Unity should also seek to have productive relationships with other groups and campaigns whose aims accord with LU’s principles, and the elected leadership body of Left Unity may consider it in some cases appropriate to invite representatives of key fraternal organisations , eg, trades unions, major national campaigns, to take positions on its leadership body/bodies. In all cases though, the primacy of the control of the party by its individual members will be the overriding principle.

   • James Youd says:

     July 9, 2013 at 5:05 pm

     Thanks John,
     Would you be interested in joining the Policy Commission charged with the internal democracy and constitution?
     I think we shouldn’t be afraid to say we are a socialist anti-capitalist party wishing not only to bring utilities etc into public ownership but the whole economy within the democratic control of the workers.
     These may be very old ideals, but that of the capitalist state is just as old. We have to have new ways of involving the environment and modern day struggles into the very fabric of our constitution.
     Best wishes James
     Co-convenor Constitution and internal democracy Policy Commission

2. John Penney says:

   July 9, 2013 at 4:58 pm

   Oops, re above contribution; forgot to say, that I am a monthly subs paying member of Left Unity , and no other group or organisation.

3. Hoom says:

   July 9, 2013 at 8:20 pm

   Membership- Individual membership. Members of groups not opposed to LU should be free to join on that basis. OMOV. At the basic level, I think that someone committing to paying a (scaled according to income) membership fee is a member of LU and has full democratic rights. We need to recognise that some people may not have the time to participate much more and that shouldn’t mean we exclude them.

   Structure- Largely federal and centered round local groups. Obviously, people need to be working within the general principles agreed by LU. But local groups should have a large amount of autonomy in how they operate. This allows them to adapt to local conditions etc. So no handing down orders from the center (which almost always means from London).

   Leadership- Obviously, we’re going to need some kind of leadership, even for stuff as basic as booking a hall for national conference. But LU still needs to be as bottom up as possible. So collective leadership committee. Leaders are delegates, not representatives and should be re-callable on that basis. And leadership should not be making policy decisions without the involvement of the membership. Minutes and agendas also need to be made available to everyone, in the latter case, well in advance. I’m heavily in favour of electing the leadership by STV as I think it’s by far the most democratic option.

   Policy making- The members as a whole should be the supreme policy making body, in fact, I see very few reasons why policy would need to be made outside of that. Deciding on the agenda does strike me as a leadership role, but all members should be able to propose policy. (Possibly with a certain number of supporters, but with that some structures for communication need to be put in place). Any conferences should be all member, not delegates. However, there are logistical issues with getting people to conferences and it can lead to a situation where things are being run by the people with the most spare time. The potential of online policy discussion and decision making needs to be looked at. There’s obvious technical and security issues, so it shouldn’t be rushed into, but I think it should be the aim. And I’m in favour of the policy commissions being an ongoing process.

   Representation- I don’t think we should have a 50% quota of women, though I accept this is contentious and will need to be decided democratically. I have three main issues with it. Firstly, as we’ve seen with the Labour Party, it can be used in procedural maneuvering. There’s a reason the Blairites are so in favour of it. Secondly, I’d query whether it sends the right message to suggest that women’s oppression is more important than disability, ethnicity, class etc. Because nobody’s proposing quotas for those, partly because trying to cover every axis of discrimination would be impossible. Thirdly, and most importantly, I think it’s a sticking plaster solution. If women aren’t represented substantially in the membership, that’s a really big issue. And going “yeah, but we have 50% of our elected representatives as women” is going to obfuscate that.

   Absolutely support the right of groups that are structurally discriminated against to form autonomous caucuses. It should be on that basis rather then “identity” though. These caucuses shouldn’t have special rights though, because OMOV should be a principle.

   Same with left groups, although I think the right to form caucuses there is less of a right and more of a reality. It makes no sense to tell people they have to pretend they aren’t in the same group. Again, no special rights.

   • Richard Murgatroyd says:

     July 9, 2013 at 10:31 pm

     Hi Hoom (and all contributors)

     Thanks for your contribution. You covered a wide range of issues in your post Hoom and I’m worried that some of your points could get lost in the fog of debate. Thats why, as we say in the initial post above, we were hoping to try and take issues in some kind of order to prevent the whole debate becoming a mess and really confusing with loads of issues all being debated at once. This isn’t a control-freak thing but we felt that it will be easier for people reading and contributing to this Policy commission to be able to address more specific and detailed issues in shorter posts.

     The current strand is Strand 1 – Basic principles

     What should be the aims of the party?

     Who can be a member and what would members be expected to commit to?

     Should LU be a one member one vote party or federation of groups?

     We will have time to address all the issues identified in the other strands above, which your points refer to. Of course thats not to say that the ‘strands’ we identified above are exhaustive and if you think we need another one please say.

     Hope this makes sense?

     All the best

     Richard

     Co-convenor

4. John Penney says:

   July 9, 2013 at 8:28 pm

   I’d be very keen and willing to join the Policy Commission on internal democracy and constitution , James.

5. johnkeeley says:

   July 9, 2013 at 8:53 pm

   My article on ‘How to make democratic decisions’:

   http://leftunity.org/how-to-make-democratic-decisions/

   Participation is all important.

6. Richard Murgatroyd says:

   July 9, 2013 at 10:15 pm

   Hi John and James

   I am not a member of any other political organisation

   Thanks for your post John and I would echo james invite to join the Policy Commission. However I would go for a broader, generic and shorter statement of aims. While I agree with every word of yours John I felt some of it reads more like specific policy or a manifesto. I’m conscious that we are tasked with creating a constitutional document here rather than a statement of policies. The aims need to be both broad and specific enough to inform all the other sections.

   I hope the aims set our below are clearly socialist and anti-capitalist without using out-moded language rooted in the experience of Stalinism/Trotskyism etc and off-putting terminology

   I have also tried to emphasise pluralism and diversity because LU is not simply an attempt to create (again!) a socialist workers’revolutionary party – there are already plenty of those out there already – but I hope will live up to its name and genuinely unite the left in its broadest sense.

   So how about this…

   The aims of Left Unity are:
   a) to unite the diverse strands of radical and socialist politics in the UK including worker’s organisations and trade unions; people and communities facing discrimination because of gender, ethnicity, age, disability or sexuality; grass root organisations and co-operatives rooted in our neighbourhoods and communities; environmental and green campaigners; campaigners for freedom and democracy; all those who seek to authentically voice and represent the interests of ordinary working people
   b) to win a mandate to govern and introduce radical and fundamental changes in British society based on our belief in the benefits of cooperation and community ownership instead of the chaotic competition of capitalism; universal human rights, internationalism and peace; social, political and economic equality for all in the fullest sense, without which true democracy and mutual respect cannot flourish; an economy that is environmentally sustainable, owned or controlled by the community and produces/distributes goods and services according to the needs of the people and not the profit of a minority; an inclusive welfare society which meets the needs of all citizens and within which each contributes according to their ability
   c) to above all promote democracy in the understanding that fundamental and radical change can only come with the consent and support of the majority of people; that the way we organise today is a pointer to the kind of society we want to see in the future

   • John Penney says:

     July 11, 2013 at 3:53 pm

     This issue of “General Aims” compared to “Specific Policies”, reminds me of many a job-related “away day” where as a board member of various organisations we were often tasked with thinking up a general “Mission Statement” – distinct from specific policies.

     It strikes me your (completely acceptable) list of “Aims” is akin in concept to that “Mission Statement” that lots of companies/organisations have. And nothing at all wrong with that at all – I agree with all of them. However I strongly believe that Left Unity urgently needs a wider “What We Stand For” statement that covers both an introductory set of short “Aims” (The Mission Statement”) , much as suggested here by yourself, and John Keeley, and others elsewhere, AND a much wider set of absolutely key POLICY aims and principles – as suggested by myself – (but also an earlier excellent proposal by Huddersfield Left Unity way back on this Forum). My suggestion attempts to bridge both the key overall aims with the key policy objectives, in one Statement.

     Fine if we are just discussing that very basic general outline “Mission Statement” in Strand 1 here , but there is as yet no suggested strand for the more detailed “What We Stand For” key policy and principles Statement. (And Conference is fast approaching in November). I really think we urgently need one – at least in general outline – even just as the basis for Conference debate. This is after all the “POLICY” Commission. If this body doesn’t “get the ball rolling” on specific policy proposals prior to Conference, I think the debates around key policies could be unnecessarily unstructured and inconclusive – a la the 11th May discussion deadlock on the “Statement” offered up by the organising Committee

     • Richard Murgatroyd says:

       July 11, 2013 at 7:12 pm

       Hi John

       Yes I totally agree we need to have a basic What we stand for document along the lines you suggest (or the Huddersfield document which I’m glad you liked) but our understanding is that the remit of this particular Policy Commission is to draft basic principles on internal democracy and then put these into the form of a draft constitution, hopefully(!) by the November conference.

       So yes in that sense the ‘aims’ section of Strand 1 was indeed intentionally written as more of a mission statement that will inform the detailed organisational arrangements, structures and rules that we will consider in later strands.

       But that said your point remains a really important one – maybe there should be some decision taken on getting a proper What we stand for document together – would this be a case for a separate working group…?

       Best
       Richard

7. Hoom says:

   July 10, 2013 at 1:49 am

   Oops, my bad Richard, I mistook what you were asking for.

   I’ll narrow it down to just that point then (so excuse me if I repeat myself somewhat).

   Aims and Principles- While I think the more detailed version you give is good, I think we also need to be able to narrow it down to a single line. How about something like “to represent the interests of ordinary working people”. I know it’s overly simplistic, but I do think we need something pithy as well as the more extensive version.

   Who can be a member- Anyone who agrees with the broad aims and principles of Left Unity and isn’t a member of an organisation overtly hostile to those aims and principles. In terms of commitment, the least required is the paying of subs which should give full membership rights. Obviously, we’d encourage people to get more involved than that though.

   Structure- I don’t think a federal structure and OMOV are necessarily mutually exclusive. I’d prefer a structure where local groups have a great deal of autonomy, but all decisions on both a national and local level are taken by OMOV. I’m talking specifically about the regional groups though; I see no reason why political parties within LU need any special rights.

8. johnkeeley says:

   July 10, 2013 at 7:39 am

   The key questions are:
   1. What does Left Unity stand for?
   2. How does it organise?

   As I’ve posted elsewhere, we need a simple easy to read platform, such as:

   We are anti-capitalists.

   We are against a world that produces for profit.
   We are for a society that produces to meet human needs.

   We are against the few controlling the labour of the many.
   We are for people sharing out the mundane tasks any society requires to be done.

   We are against the ecological destruction of our planet.
   We are for a way of life that lives in harmony with our natural world.

   We are against any groups discriminating against others.
   We are for humanity living together in solidarity & respecting diversity.

   We are against an elite making decisions for the rest.
   We are for equality in decision-making.

   We want humanity to be free.

   As for organisation, the principle needs to be that sovereignty lies with members in their local groups. That we are not a centralised, top-down organisation supporting a few career politicians.
   Assuming we stand in elections (Westminster, council & European) & intend to take our seats, there should be a limit of one term, otherwise we risk creating an elite separated from its members.
   Similarly, people elected to official positions, whether at national or local level, should be limited to 5 years with no return for another 5 years.
   There should be no ‘professionals’ living off the subscriptions of members.
   And most importantly decision-making should be open to all members through polls held on the national website.

9. Mike Scott says:

   July 11, 2013 at 11:00 am

   Hi Richard/Everybody –
   * I’m not a member of any other political party/group.
   * I’m glad you’ve made the distinction between aims/principles and policy, as that saves me from doing it!
   * I agree with your general statement, which seems to cover the important areas.
   * I think it’s essential that LU is fully democratic and controlled by its members, not anyone else – even if we usually agree with them. So no affiliations from other parties/groups/factions and that will have to include trade unions. We should welcome co-operation and open donations, but this shouldn’t give anyone control or influence over policy.
   * Membership should be open to anyone on the left who shares the aims/principles, once agreed. If members of other parties, etc. choose to join, this must be as individuals. Any attempt to take over or undermine LU on behalf of another organisation must be viewed as acting against the interests of LU members and dealt with on that basis.

   All for now

   Cheers, Mike

   • James Youd says:

     July 11, 2013 at 2:19 pm

     Hi Mike,
     Thanks for your contribution. I agree that this new left party we are creating must be a one member one vote membership. What I also think though is that to be both a broad socialist party and to limit the ability of factions/caucusing (whatever you want to call it) puts people who are members of current groups a dilemma I do not think it would be fair to make them choose between.
     I of course do agree that sects must not be able to control the leadership or any one body within the party. Making factions open and transparent and then designing rules in the constitution that allow them to exist positively without negatively control can then be put in place. The alternative is that you get groups organising underground there is no outside monitoring of those groups by others within the party and very real splits can emerge. Or you take the complete control method the SWP is doing at the moment by undermining any opposition and purges those who openly challenge the politics of others within the party.
     I think we need to think carefully before writing into a constitution that no trade union may have influence within a party. I certainly don’t want their leaderships to have any ability to control us, but trade unionists are increasingly being politically isolated from the Labour Party; a left party must be the receptacle for that disillusionment and lack of representation. Having an active trade union group within the constitution would be a great idea to facilitate that.
     Also we need to be careful we don’t put so many rules down whereby we become a party that spends time with one using one clause to argue another has done improperly and have long tedious disputes as the rule rather than the exception. Disputes only have one victor and that is our real political opponents outside of this new party.
     Good to see the discussion being so lively, Richard will email the group later today to lay out how we intend to proceed.
     Best wishes James

10. Mike Scott says:

    July 11, 2013 at 9:33 pm

    Hi James – the devil is in the detail! One way or another, we need to do everything possible to stop the sort of stuff that has happened so often in the past. I don’t really mind how we do this, as long as it happens.

    I wrote the bit about unions as a lifelong trade unionist and a fulltime Organiser for 20 years. I completely agree that we need to encourage unions to support us, but as above, we need to ensure that support is on terms acceptable to us. it’s difficult and it won’t happen by itself. I’ve seen enough of senior union managers to want to be quite careful – I had more problems with them than I did working in the public sector previously!

    Cheers, Mike

11. Pete McLaren says:

    July 12, 2013 at 10:18 pm

    Now that i have finally been able to join the discussion – thanks James, Richard and Mike for your helpful suggestions – i can see that a lot of thought has already been put into this first strand. I do agree with James that we must find ways of encouraging the involvement of trade unions AT BRANCH LEVEL – and i would add there is also a need to involve radical community groups, tenants groups and all left groups supportive of LU. I do think this can be accomodated alongside OMOV. It will happen naturally at local level and already does – we have had individual members of the Green party and Socialist party at Rugby LU meetings already. At national level, we need a representative body – a sort of National Council somewhat like the present NCG with reps from local groups, maybe a small number elected directly by Conference (not convinced about that though) and ONE represenative of each supportative trade union branch, tenants group, radical community group and left organisations/parties. Once political platforms have been organised within LU, these should also have ONE represenative each on the national body, maybe instead of that platform’s party having a rep if a platform replicates a party.

    As long as it is restricted to one member per group/branch/party no one group would be able to dominate, with at least 100 reps from local LUs, the vast majority of whom would be independent socialists. I really don’t think any left group or trade union is going to try and take over local LU groups or any national body as happened within local Socialist Alliances in the late 1990’s and the SA nationally in 2001 – everyone has moved on from that, and the left groups I regularly work with appear to have learnt the lesson on this. An excellent recent example of what i am saying occurred at the LU Launch meeting in Coventry last month which I was invited to address to report back from Doncaster. Three members of the SP attended out of a turn out of 13. One of the local SP organisers was one of them, and he made it clear right at the start that the SP had attended in a comradely friendly manner to see how the project developed, but that they would be taking a ‘back seat’ whilst that happened. One of them actually chaired the meeting, and did so very fairly.

    The test of being a ‘supportative group’ would need to be by paying an affiliation fee, so I disagree with Mike about that. We must be inclusive – the clue is in our title – Left Unity. That must mean uniting the left, not excluding left organisations at the outset as some were suggesting at the May national LU meeting. As long as we make sure no one group can dominate, let alone take control -even though i no longer think any would want (and few have the resources nowadays anyway) – it would be inclusive and workable

    By the way, I have also never been a member of any left organisation – unless you count the recently formed TUSC Independent Socialist Network which is an organisation for independent socialists within TUSC. Remember, TUSC is a coalition, not a left party – a Coalition of three left parties (SP, SWP, SR), the RMT and, at local level to a certain extent, the FBU, individual leading trade unionists (which i am not happy with, although few, including Bob Crow, ever turn up) and the TUSC ISN. I am now an officer of TUSC- to help develop local TUSC groups – but TUSC is not a left party. so i remain healthily independent – but I do often have the ear of a number of left parties through work I have done over a number of years, and that could be quite useful!!

    Hope this helps

    Pete

12. gerryc says:

    July 16, 2013 at 10:19 pm

    I still have some thinking / talking to do on this, but only 1 weekend has passed since this thread effectively started – and that was committed elsewhere! Could I ask that this remain open until we have had at least two weekends to process. The working week is demanding!

    ATB, Gerry