Labour HQ factionalism and how to end it
When the dust has settled on this new ‘report’, designed for the EHRC investigation into Labour HQ’s handling of antisemitism and factors behind that, and everyone has had a good yell at each other, some kind of Labour HQ will still have to exist if the party is to function at all.
The key lesson I draw from the last few years of factional fighting, from the furious reaction of opinion formers on the left of the party to the report, and from the counter-reactions of those now under the kosh from it, is that neither left nor right factions within Labour are likely to display the level of trustworthiness in managing the necessary bureaucracy of the party in HQ — and that is what HQ is supposed to be there — as long as HQ continues to be conceived in its current form. While the right is at fault this time around, the calls for revenge by the left do not strike me as likely to lead to any kind of mutual understanding anytime soon.
The principal problem that Labour HQ is seen by all parties as a centre of political power, sometimes aligned with the political leadership, sometimes not.
But that is not what HQ is actually there for. HQ is there to act as the necessary bureaucracy — to manage the finances of the party, to ensure legal compliance at all times, to deliver membership services and…well, that’s about it. There is a reason the head of HQ is called a ‘secretary’, and it’s a good reason.
As long as HQ remains a career ladder for political wannabees, keen to be close to the centre of political action, then it’s going to be factional. HQ, frankly, needs to be dull as shit politically, though it should be a welcoming workplace and offer career growth for competent administrators.
There is an obvious cut-through solution.
What needs to happen is for the whole of HQ, some of the better functioning bit of which is already in Newcastle anyway,to undergo a radical decentralization on regional lines physically, and on CLP lines in terms of control and financing, in a way which breaks it up as a source of wannabee political power and brings it closer to its on the ground support function.
Such a decentralized HQ operation would look something like this.
Notionally (as with school budgets held by local authorities ) all member and union sourced income to the party should be devolved down to CLP level (there would need to be a pro-rata notional division from central union contributions( , bar a small topslice for basic admin e.g. to run a central finance function.
CLPs would then have the power to buy back in, or not, to other regionalized services, although the current elected Regional Board structure would have the power delegated from NEC to quality assure CLP functions to ensure that those not choosing not to buy into the central service offer are acting legitimately in terms of the associational and political services (sometimes via rejuvenated, re-purposed Trades Councils) that they provide to local areas, and in terms of their obligations in respect of Clause I of the party’s rules.
Normally, if the services offered by HQ from its regionalized structure (there is an argument to break down the regions to somewhat smaller City/County units) are of sufficient quality, CLPs will tend to buy back in to them, as they provide economies of scale not achievable at a CLP level (though of course there would be legitimate discussion on localization of supply chains for social value purposes).
Clearly, in areas where CLPs do not function fully currently e.g. parts of the South West, what structure does exist would choose to buy straight back in to the (sub-)regional service, or in cases where there is simply no structure, the Regional (or Sub-regional) Board would have the power to do so delegated from the NEC.
To provide a critical mass of CLP activity in local areas, a similar decentralization would need to follow in respect of MPs and PCCs, who would effectively submit and report on business plans to their CLPs in return for a funding offer, (with MP office allowances also allocated notionally to CLPs).
Such a radical decentralization and transfer of power and resources to local level would be a good in itself, will also act be to stop the party being destroyed by the apparatchnik tendencies now so obviously harming the party’s interests.
This is a brief overview of what I suggest needs to happen now. More detail on these ideas is at my Collins Review submission from 2013 when Ed Miliband face the kind of organizational issue now facing Keir Starmer.
The review was ignored at the time, but perhaps this latest factional meltdown may make it more appealing, should the new leadership and NEC give a shit about making the party function properly.
