July 16.
The revelation by the trade union Save The Link campaign that
constituency parties disagree with one member, one vote (OMOV) proves
nothing: delegates from the same unions probably used their multiple
voting rights (at #6 per skull) within the constituency Labour parties
to secure that outcome.
Moreover, this is in itself ample reason why Labour must change: local
parties are sewn up by careerist cliques, sustained by trade union
delegations centred on opportunist, sponsored MPs.
Of course they do not want any change that will upset their dominance.
Add to this the bizarre attitude of the headbangers (seen at party
conference every year) who wish to convert Labour into a nationalist
party, or a revolutionary party, and the result is a declining and
inactive membership, exclusive and frequently unwelcoming to people who
want simply to support John Smith and democratic socialism.
Trade unions should welcome OMOV as an opportunity to bring Labour's
active membership back into line with the aims and aspirations of its
voters.
They should encourage their members to take up Labour Party membership
in their hundreds of thousands, to create a whole new party
overwhelmingly made up of working people who support Labour's goals.
The OMOV proposals have the potential to transform the whole culture
of the Labour Party, from one characterised by an eccentric and at times
perverse membership into one that is genuinely representative of the
people it seeks to benefit.
The new members will wrest control from daft, far-left, and
nationalist ''activists'' and ensure that MPs are selected to reflect
local wishes. Crucially Labour will never again be in the pocket of any
vested interest group offering cash in exchange for influence.
In short, OMOV can galvanise Labour into the UK's modern democratic
socialist party, able to pursue radical goals of social justice and
equality free from the institutional shackles of all establishment
interests.
And if the unions share Labour's aims, that should be ample motive for
party donations at election time.
Peter Russell,
1 Bower Street,
Hillhead,
Glasgow.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article