Time for a debate on the block vote?

Scan page 12

"To change our views on the block vote because some unions have moved left is the height of opportunism' THE decision of Labour's Wembley Conference to establish a new system for electing the Party leader may have put the right wing in retreat but it appears to have further confused the left on the question of the block vote.

Just over one year ago the Rank and File Mobilising Committee published a 16 paobilise for Labour Democracy" • Whilst it dealt with questions such as the reselection of MPs, accountability, and electing the leader, it had nothing to say on the subject of the block vote. Yet this issue is crucial to any debate on party democracy.

At present the unions' voting strength at Labour Party conferences outweighs the Constituency Parties by over 9 to 1. The new electoral college which gives 40% of the votes to the unions can only help increase union domination within the Party.

The block vote is an historical legacy. The unions formed the Labour Party in order to have their interests represented in Parliament.

But socialists should be fighting to make Labour the party of all sections of the working class - youth, unemployed, blacks, tenants, etc - and not just the unions' mouthpiece in the House of Commons.

Ine question the leit must ask themselves is: does the electoral college, and the domination of the block vote help the process of converting the Labour Party from an electoral machine into a party which actively intervenes in the daily struggles of the working class? The whole democracy debate within the party must be set in this context.

Unfortunately the bulk of Labour's left do not see the democracy issue in this light. For them, the Party already has the political programme but the leadership lacks the will to carry it out. The problem is therefore seen as an organisational one to win the accountability of the Parliamentary Labour Party. It is not seen as a step towards questioning the institute of parliament itself.

Marxists within the Labour Party must show that while democracy is important, the central question is the need for a socialist programme to replace the present one which is based on trying to breathe new life into capitalism.

At present the strength of the unions via the block vote means that they can get what they want without the responsibility of taking part in the daily activities of the Labour Party. The historical divorce between the political and industrial wings of the labour movement is therefore reinforced by the existence of the block vote.

For years the left in the Labour Party opposed the block vote and its cynical manipulation by right wing General Secretaries.

However, now that some major unions have shifted to the left, the opposition to the block vote has gone very quiet.

The Tribunites have found some Marxist allies in arguing that the major problem with the block vote is the lack of union consultareprisal for the execution tion with their members to give the opportunity to mandate delegates.

Their other objection to the block vote is that union delegates at Labour Party conferences are top heavy with full-time officials.

The question of consultation with the membership of the unions and the composition of the delegations is the nurse of one block votes, not the way it is cast, which is the real issue.

A single union like the GMWU or AUEW can outvote all the combined votes of the Constituency Parties. All socialists must condemn a scheme which produces such absurd situations. The block vote is a travesty of democracy and it will remain so regardless of whose hand is on the voting card - right wing General Secretary or rank and file activist.

To change one's opinion of the block vote because certain unions have moved to the left is the height of opportunist politics.

Full debate within a union on what its position should be at Labour Party conferences is essential. The composition of union delegations and their method of selection needs to be scrutinised. However, mandation is not the solution to our problems.

Firstly it is impossible to mandate union delegates for every conceivable debate. And more importantly, if every delegate attends conference knowing which way to vote, why should they bother to listen to the by Les Hearn way as the sun produces its

Writaback

debate?

The d ecision has already been mad le. Unions might as well send • their votes in by post and forget any conference.

The unions' voting strength within the Labour Party is in urgent need of revision. Discussing mandation and delegations is to side step the issue.

The Wembley Conference decision must be welcomed by socialists. But it must be seen as part of a process of moving towards the supremacy of the annual conference. Having conference decide who is to be leader, and what the manifesto will be, must mean abolishing the block vote.

Foliowing the Wembley decision our task is to start a debate on alternatives to the block vote and how whatever replaces it can help unite the political and industrial wings of the movement.

Several ideas have emerged on what should replace the block vote. One is that instead of unions affiliating nationally to the Labour Party they should affiliate their members paying the political levy through the constituencies. This would bring about the involvement of trade unionists at the grass roots of the Labour The present system of trade union delegates Constituency GMCs and DisWrite back 28 Middle Lane, London Some proposals to break down the national votes ol unions and incorporate them into the local life of the Labour Party contain mans dangers: none more so thar the proposal for Labou Party factory branches.

No one should oppost Labour Party members being politically active in thei place of work. But an actua factory branch contains the danger of becoming dominated by trade unior politics and parallelling the official union structure ir the factory.

Shop stewards commit tees may well become hostil to what they see as a riva body. If we are seeking : unity between all sections o: the working class, and sympathetic middle clas people, then factory branches won't help thi aim.

Whatever option is finally taken up the task is tr develop the social anc political objectives of the whole movement by discuss ing the role the union should play within thr Labour Party. Some of thr above ideas may or may no be the solution, but they indicate the areas which any debate on the block votr must look at.

Such a debate is long overdue.

DEREK CATTELL