Meeting held on Monday 17 October 2016
7 people were present and 4 gave their apologies.
Discussion started by considering a number of infrastructure projects the government was currently sponsoring/considering: Hinckley Point, HS2 and the Heathrow third runway (or its alternative). We held a variety of views on each of these. While we were in favour of infrastructure projects in general as a way to revive the economy and provide employment, each of these was problematic. It seemed that the Labour Party also lacked a strong commitment to these particular projects. It was a pity that no major infrastructure projects (like housing) were being embarked upon by government with the same enthusiasm.
We discussed the problems many voluntary organisations are having with a lack of people prepared to commit themselves to voluntary service. Local political organisations and social groups were failing to find people to take on official roles. It seemed paradoxical that while Labour Party membership had expanded rapidly, posts such as chair, secretary and treasurer of local parties remained unfilled. Hathersage WI had even ceased to exist, due to no-one being prepared to officiate. This phenomenon led to a discussion of the ways in which people are connected. Whereas in the past strong community and face to face contact with local people ensured commitment, now contact is wider through networking, but not involving organisational commitment. Consequently, in political grouping, ‘movements’ appear to be becoming more significant than ‘parties’. Indeed, the growth of the Labour Party has been often pejoratively described as the growth of a ‘movement’, with Corbyn as the head of a movement rather than a party.
Brexit was the consequence of a ‘movement’ rather than the policy of any major party. Were movements now becoming more powerful than parties? And if so, where does this leave parliamentary democracy? It seemed that, in the case of the LP at least, the movement evidenced an increase in legitimacy (ie the party being more representative of its active participants) but a loss of its efficiency (as a means of opposing government policy). In its aim to increase efficiency should it concentrate on the shadow cabinet and its opposition to government, or should it build its movement into a more effective organisation? Some of us felt positive about the growth of the LP legitimacy as a ‘movement’, others felt more negative about the lack of efficiency of the party which is unable to mount effective opposition. But perhaps the most effective opposition to the government is coming from others in the Tory Party, from large elements of business and from some financial interests.
In some final reflective comments on our work as a group, we thought that we had rather strayed from our original aim to involve a range of viewpoints from the left, and had instead given too much attention to the Labour Party and its fortunes. We would welcome a stronger voice from, for example, Green, and even wondered (half seriously) whether we should ban discussion of Corbyn!)