Stella Creasy, Labour and Co-operative MP for Walthamstow, argues that too many activists’ evenings and weekends are overwhelmed with party bureaucracy, and a year of debate, campaigning and relationship-building – and no CLP meetings – will allow Labour to renew itself.

At a time when 32,000 people have joined or rejoined the party, some might say that Labour is renewing itself. But it will take more than new people alone to breathe new life into Labour. Our member base may be growing, but activism is in long-term decline. For too long our party has relied on the few to be able to function, rather than the many.

To deal with this, we have to change the way we work with each other. And to sustain the change we need, we have to find new ways to organise ourselves. Until we do, we will continue to disintegrate as a force for social change in Britain. Our current structures only deliver one thing consistently: meetings. As Oscar Wilde so acutely observed, that is a problem for socialism.

Without enough active members, mobilised in the right way, our ability to win power and lead change becomes overly reliant on a high-risk ‘lone ranger’ strategy. The Labour presence in many parts of the country depends on a single MP, councillor or Branch Chair. They’re often the sole instigators of any work our party does, and sometimes the sole actors too. If we depend solely on their efforts – no matter how valiant they are – we will struggle to remain a vibrant force.

All the leadership candidates agree we need to renew the party, but to see this as a matter for them alone is to miss the contribution we all need to make as members. Many point to Obama and American politics, arguing that we need to find a rallying cry to enthuse and mobilise people. Yet to propose that a series of single issues – even those as worthy as the living wage or as radical as a national care service – can be enough to sustain activism underestimates the nature of the challenge we face. It is one of culture and structures, not ideas and individuals.

As a volunteer-led organisation, our membership is our greatest strength – and our greatest weakness. At its best, reforming the way we work together is about honouring the passion and principles each of us give to fighting for Labour. At its worst, the debate corrodes into squabbling about who has held which position for longest or delivered the most leaflets. This has to change. We may be less than twenty four hours away from a new leader, but we’re a lifetime away from the root and branch renewal our movement needs.

Setting the tone: what is the purpose of the Labour Party?
We face two related challenges: a culture that inadvertently alienates people and a structure that drains time, energy and effort. If we only seek to adapt or evolve, we risk replicating the difficulties we have, rather than reforming them. Changing our customs to meet the modern era means starting not with what we have, but with what we are.

Why should anyone join the Labour Party? Why should they give their time, energy and attention to progressive activism? What is Labour for? Too often, we assume our answers to these questions are the same as those of other members and activists. We might discuss why we joined – or why we continue to be involved – with voters or family members, but we rarely do it with each other. Our structures are not set up to maintain any shared intellectual ground; instead they’re focused on the particulars. The repetitive format of agendas, reports, standing orders, compositing and motions can sap the vigour of everyone. And, without a collectively agreed sense of what the Labour movement should stand for, everyone can lay claim to being right. This limits our ability to hold representatives to account.

Some may argue that trying to be a mass member political movement in this day and age is trying to swim against the tide. Membership of political parties is in long-term decline both in the UK and internationally. By 2005, only 1.3 per cent of the electorate were members of one of the main political parties, falling from nearly 4 per cent in 1983.  A similar fall in membership can be observed in other mass movements. In 1979 over half of all employees in Britain were members of a trade union. By 2003 this had shrunk to under a third.

Yet social networks and concerns endure. 40 per cent of the population volunteer regularly and one in twenty people organise themselves into football teams every week in the UK. People still want to be part of something bigger. But they’re rejecting formality and hierarchy in favour of flexibility and self-expression. 37 per cent of non-voters are also members of campaigns or community action groups . They still want to change the world around them – but they’re rejecting political participation as a way of doing it.

Labour can no longer claim to be the only standard bearers for the progressive instincts of the British people. There are countless single issue campaigns and community organisations whose work overlaps with ours. They’re clear with supporters and members about their purpose because they see how it motivates and maintains interest. Amnesty International promotes human rights, Christian Aid seeks to end poverty and Greenpeace campaigns to protect our natural environment. Their figures for membership and activism contrast sharply with our own. This is because they know how to ‘sell’ involvement and sustain it. The need to define and demarcate our purpose is ever more pressing against this backdrop. If we are to secure the attention of the British public, Labour must set out why its purpose is as different and important as these campaigns’ – and just as worthy of activism.

Making our purpose more explicit won’t just make people feel good about being part of Labour. It will also create a climate in which disagreement and dispute can be healthy and constructive, rather than a deal breaker. If differences are aired within the context of a mutual ambition, it can be much easier to find common ground. In a healthy political movement no one should expect – or indeed want – to agree all the time. Yet without a parallel recognition of where we do concur, every participant in a dialogue can feel isolated. Ironically, the only times many members get to engage in such conversations are during selections, as they are lobbied by candidates for support or as they discuss their choices. Even this limited experience illustrates how such conversations can energise activists and reawaken dormant members.

We have to recognise that even the hardiest pilgrim will find it hard to keep the faith if the faith is rarely articulated. From the grassroots up, we need ways of coming together so we can sustain this common sense of motivation and make it the foundation of our actions. A clearly expressed, commonly understood purpose can set the tone in which we ask people to join, to collaborate with each other and, above all, to keep going through all the compromises and setbacks which block the path towards a fairer society.

In what context do we operate?

Our purpose links us with other progressives throughout history and in every city and every country. Our values are timeless. However, the world in which we live is constantly evolving. And, as the context in which we act changes, so should the way we express our concern for social justice. That our operational structures would still appear familiar to the founders of the Labour movement should not stop us from asking if they appeal to our contemporary followers.

The structures we currently use presume a model for involvement and accountability that can be administered equally in every CLP. This offers little flexibility for the people we ask to enforce them. At all levels of the Labour movement, our structures reinforce negative cultures rather than overcoming them. Consequently activism can become a form of martyrdom, only for those who can give hours of time to meetings and campaigning. Those people who do give their time end up holding several posts, trying to maintain databases, update canvassing returns and organise branch notices all at once. It’s little wonder then that they start to resent those who would rather chew their own limbs off than sit through a packed agenda of repetitive reports. Few other contemporary volunteer-led movements would be satisfied with a structure that relied so heavily on individual rather than collective motivations. With today’s time-poor citizens, it is only through the sheer stamina of some of our membership that Labour has survived.

Processes: how should we organise ourselves?

We say that working together, we can achieve more than we do alone. But what do we mean by that? Purpose and people are the factors that must define the detail. If we are clear about this, then the processes that support them will inevitably vary according to the lifestyles and locations of our members. Renewing party activism demands a more complicated and subtle change than either getting rid of GCs all together or returning to the compositing conferences of yore. The changes we need to achieve are relational rather than structural. Put simply, we need to build a different culture first – one that works for us in the 21st century – and then worry about what this means for meetings or minutes.

Labour is often encouraged to engage with sister parties, but rarely sister causes. Yet within the community, voluntary and even faith sectors there are lessons to be learned in how to work with and empower others. We should not be afraid to ask how organisations facing similar challenges to ours have won – or lost – their battle to turn interest into activism.

Learning from community organisers

One of the most interesting developments of recent months has been the acknowledgement by all the leadership candidates that community organising techniques could benefit the Labour movement. Community organising is not new to Labour, but in recent generations it has fallen by the wayside. Some CLPs have resurrected these ways of working, illustrating the potential benefits to our electoral prospects – Birmingham Edgbaston being a particularly successful example. The Movement for Change is the latest attempt at exploring whether these methods could deliver the cultural and structural change we need.

This is an approach that helps people build relationships with others so they can work together for change, rather than seeking first to elect secretaries, chairs and delegates. The tools they use – one-to-ones, house meetings and community walks – are also designed to generate and sustain collective endeavour amongst large groups of participants. How this translates into action differs according to the community involved and the campaign people get behind. Crucially for a political party that relies on individual volunteers, this method also generates a mass leader approach. Participants are offered the opportunity to go on and take responsibility for activities. This is integral, rather than incidental, to the methodology. This spreads the administrative load of organising activities. What’s more, because it safeguards against risky dependence on any one individual or issue, it offers a more sustainable basis for activism.

Community organising bodies such as Citizens UK have secured the participation of thousands of individuals using these methods. The Movement for Change has also mobilised hundreds of members and new supporters for Labour in a short time. Of course, not everything about community organising can or should be incorporated into Labour’s operating practices. Some differences are pragmatic: Labour doesn’t have the resources to train every participant up to equally high levels of activism. Others are philosophical: their focus on winnable campaigns would exclude progressive but as yet unpopular causes from our attention. Nevertheless, in offering different ways to work with volunteers and inspire them, theirs is an approach with much to offer.

Learning from the voluntary sector...

While community organising aims to bring everyone up to a similar level of activism, other sectors recognise that not all potential recruits can give the same time. The Scout Association see volunteers as being on a ‘journey’ where they gradually develop their involvement. In practical terms this means accepting that some members only ever help once a year for twenty years while others take on administrative roles and jobs that require work each week. Scout groups in every location have individuals whose only role is volunteer management and logistic co-ordination. That way, they make sure the movement benefits from whatever time people are prepared to give. This is a more intensive approach to volunteer management than Labour has ever formally used. But it is happening on the ground: Southwark is a well-known example where the borough party co-ordinates volunteers as well as campaigns.

Faith organisations offer another example of the value of making time to consider motivation when trying to sustain participation through difficult times. Churches regularly hold house groups and prayer meetings where peers mentor each other’s personal engagement with faith. These aren’t times to plot activities, just moments for shared reflection. The Labour version of this is the now-undervalued role of political education officers. Where they still exist, they are seen as part of the General Committee agenda. They aren’t given space and flexibility to encourage contemplation on the purpose of Labour. Learning from the experience of faith groups would help Labour think about how to give members a chance to discuss the purpose of political activism, rather than asking them to think about it after they have sat through several hours of reports.

Conclusion: The Oscar Wilde Challenge

Organisations like Scouting and Citizens UK have made their own renewal a priority. As a result over time their membership and their contribution to British society has grown. Whether or not we can do the same will depend on how determined our new leader is to make renewal central, rather than peripheral, to Labour’s future.

The simplest way to do it would be to introduce a moratorium on all formal meetings for a single calendar year. Instead of branches, policy forums, ECs, LGCs, CLPs and regional conferences, our party would make a commitment to run a programme of activities designed to explore how we can connect with every member – and potential member – in Britain. The Party Chair seems a natural choice to lead a year of reflection on the purpose and rationale of the Labour movement. This could use any number of formats, from the one-to-one techniques of community organising or online networks to ensuring every region holds a regional assembly. Using deliberative techniques would ensure these discussions are not hustings, where politicians speak and people listen, but forums in which every voice – whether it belongs to a shadow cabinet minister, an MP, a councillor or a member – are welcomed. Think tanks, socialist societies – such as the Fabians or SERA – and sister organisations like the Co-operative party and trade unions would be asked to contribute, whether there are five people or fifty. To reduce the risk of navel gazing, an open invitation would be issued to other like-minded individuals and organisations to participate, whether they hold a membership card or not.

Alongside this year of argument would be a year of action. Each CLP should be encouraged to hold a debate and ballot on what motivates their members. Technology could allow a simple Facebook directory to collate this information and contact points for subjects chosen. This would help members and supporters reach out to find others who want to work on the same concerns. Members could then sign up individually or in a group – be it as a branch, LGC, CLP or Labour Group – to an activity that they want to commit to for the year ahead.

Those facing elections in 2011 at either a local or regional level could choose to organise a group with this as their issue for collective endeavour. Others could choose to lead a programme of community action. Some CLPs already do run projects, fitting this in as well as meetings. For example, Slough has a strong track record of acting to tackle anti-social behaviour. The moratorium would allow local activists to focus on this, rather than trying to do it in parallel with servicing existing structures.

Others may decide to spend their time working with local voluntary groups rather than generating their own campaigns. Building relationships through progressive ambitions rather than formal party lines means many people who don’t consider themselves political will feel more able to participate. In Walthamstow, our efforts to tackle personal debt in the community involve not only party activists but also faith communities and the Credit Union. Our shared concern to ban high street loan sharks and tackle poverty helps us act together.

Alternatively, members could choose to participate on a national level. There is a clear precedent for this through the growing proliferation of Labour Friends of Groups. The directory could also provide a way of networking for new groups or growing existing ones. These could reflect a particular type of supporter, such as ‘teachers for Labour’. Or they could be supported through relationships with single issue pressure groups such as Amnesty International or policy themes such as the Labour Campaign for International Development. In turn, these bodies could also register to run a campaign that our members could join.

Whether this mobilisation of members happens in CLPs, in clusters around issues or in partnership with pressure groups, it should be given room to work to its own rhythm. The party would exercise light-touch supervision, intervening only to remove groups voted by members as unsuitable or inactive to help keep the directory manageable. Those who instigate groups would be given responsibility to organise how they meet, campaign, fundraise and influence policy. It would be their choice whether they met once a month, online, or worked for a year to secure a meeting with the relevant Labour shadow minister.

Support for people who take up this challenge should come in the form of training and financial resources, as well as recognition. For one year the choice needs to be made to invest in our members for long-term returns rather than in producing short-term newsletters. Regional offices could help with printing, design work or meeting space. Small and time-limited pots of funding for leaflets, events and publications could be made available for groups to bid for and secure through bi-monthly online membership votes.

All MPs, regional party staff, councillors and candidates would be given training in different approaches to volunteer management and community organising. They would be encouraged not to set up groups but instead to focus on helping others join them. Particular attention would be given to those who have been inactive or are new to activism through Labour. Whether through one-to-ones, house meetings or networking socials, being freed from administering campaigns and attending meetings would give them the time to invest in breaking down the ‘lone ranger’ hierarchy. A leadership academy within each region could also be set up to support group organisers, running regular meet ups and peer support to help participants talk through their projects.

Finally, details of the work that’s being done should be circulated between peers across regions and nationally, so that Labour’s actions are echoed throughout the UK. The activities in Slough, Southwark and Birmingham Edgbaston don’t just win elections. They also show the difference Labour makes to our society and as such the purpose of our national movement. We can’t only learn from what others are doing – we can take pride in it. We can celebrate and promote their achievements, because we are part of the same progressive movement.

Such a moratorium would no doubt be controversial. The NEC would need to act as guarantor, willing to meet and take on both local and national concerns should an emergency arise. There would be little benefit to be gained from any enforcement. The best way to win people over to this way of working would to let them experience it for themselves. Instead, as an incentive for engagement, priority would be given to the policy proposals generated at the party conference and in the manifesto process. In addition, the conference could give over a day to showcase an assembly of participants who could report back on the outcomes.

In over a hundred years of existence, Labour has never taken this many risks with its operational model. Yet no other exercise could bring the same rewards. We have to trust our grassroots to give expression to their progressive instincts. We cannot continue to rely on time-pressed individuals to service a structure as well as leading campaigns and canvassing support. If we do, we have little hope of holding onto new and old members, let alone generating the mass activism Labour will need to win the next election. It’s time to stand up for the progressive instincts of Britain and rebuild Labour as an active social force for good in our society. Go back to your constituencies and prepare to organise.

Stella Creasy is the Labour and Co-operative MP for Walthamstow. She has been a member of the party since 1994 and has been a Branch Secretary, CLP delegate, youth officer and local Councillor. She is also a former employee of The Scout Association and regular participant in community and voluntary work in Walthamstow. Stella would like to acknowledge the assistance of Rhys Williams in preparing this article.