In 2018, Party Conference passed a rule change that sets out the process by which CLPs can switch between two different methods of organisation – an ‘all member meeting’ structure, where decisions are made at regular meetings with all members invited and eligible to vote, and a delegate-based structure, with local Party and affiliated branches electing delegates to represent them at regular General Committee (GC) meetings (some CLPs have a hybrid structure, with all members invited to attend, but only elected delegates having voting rights).
Trade Unions support delegate-based structures for local CLPs, because they allow trade union branches that have affiliated to the CLP to be formally represented and take part in the CLP’s decision-making processes. All member meetings do not allow affiliated trade unions to be represented in CLP decision-making, and this weakens the relationship between the Party and the unions at a local level.
We believe that the link between the Party and the trade union movement gives Labour a foundation in thousands of workplaces across the country. Together, trade unions bring the collective voices of nearly 4 million working people to the heart of our Party. It is this direct link to working people that makes our Party unique, and we believe that this link is crucial locally as well as nationally.
A recent rule change has simplified the process for local Labour Parties to switch between delegate-based ‘GC’ (General Committee) structures and ‘all member meeting’ or ‘AMM’ structures.
This briefing provides talking points for those who want to protect the union link at a local level and defend GC structures.
The switch between CLP structures can only be started if a union or Party branch passes a resolution calling for it. This resolution should be passed to the CLP Secretary, who has to declare the next-but-one scheduled meeting to be a special all member meeting, which shall decide (by a simple majority) whether to change structures.
The NEC has set out some guidance about how this should be implemented locally. Firstly, once a special all member meeting has made a decision about CLP structure, there can’t be another meeting held to vote on changing structures for at least 12 months. Secondly, once the process has started, the CLP Secretary must contact all Party and affiliate branches to ask for feedback on the proposed change. A report of this feedback should be circulated to all eligible members at least 7 days before the special meeting.
A General Committee structure consists only of delegates from branches (Party branches and affiliated branches). A common hybrid structure is that meetings are open to all Party members to attend, but only branch delegates have voting rights. These structures preserve the collective voice of trade union branches.
All member meetings allow all Party members a vote, but have no delegates from local affiliates, and therefore remove the collective voice of trade unions from the local Party.
Trade Unions support delegate-based structures for local CLPs, because they allow trade union branches that have affiliated to the CLP to be formally represented, and take part in the CLP’s decision-making processes. AMMs do not allow affiliated trade unions to be represented in CLP decision-making, and this weakens the relationship between the Party and the unions at a local level.
The trade union movement gives Labour a foundation in thousands of workplaces across the country. Together, trade unions bring the collective voices of nearly 4 million working people to the heart of our Party. It is this direct link to working people that makes our Party unique, and we believe that this link is crucial locally as well as nationally. Without representation of local workers, through the affiliated union branches, this industrial link is weakened.
GC structures are based on collectivism – one of the founding principles of the Labour Party. They recognise the value of the collective voice of trade unions and their internal democratic structures. Trade union delegates to GCs represent their whole branch, not just their opinions as individuals. AMMs do not recognise the collective voice of trade union branches. This means that the views and experiences of thousands of trade union members in each constituency would no longer be represented in the local Party
The Party now has a mass membership of more than half a million people. Rightly, there is a renewed emphasis on making sure the Party is grounded in local communities. If the Party is going to have a strong relationship with local communities, then our CLPs should value and strengthen the branch structure – the core unit of the Party should be branch meetings, in line with local Government wards wherever possible.
This local focus ensures that Party meetings are more able to tackle local issues, gives new and lay members more of a voice and makes it easier to hold Councillors to account, and organise for elections. AMMs tend to diminish the role of branch meetings. Some CLPs with AMM structures do not hold branch meetings. In others, turnout at branch meetings suffers dramatically, as most members can’t spare the time to attend both branch and AMM meetings. There is less need to attend a branch meeting to discuss issues with your branch delegates if you can go to the AMM direct. This weakens, not strengthens, local Party organisation.
GC structures can better ensure representation of members who aren’t able to attend lots of meetings. In particular, they may be better for members with caring responsibilities, those with disabilities or shift workers. In an AMM structure, the onus is on the individual member to attend a monthly meeting to make their voice heard. In a GC structure, they can be represented via their branch delegate to the GC. They can attend the AGM to elect them or (even if they aren’t able take part in that process) they are entitled to ask their delegate to raise issues on their behalf.
In many CLPs, AMMs can be highly unsuitable for effective participation and decision-making – especially given that many local Parties now have hundreds (or thousands) of members. It’s difficult to plan meetings that hundreds are entitled to attend. Will everyone come? If they do, is there a venue big enough? What are the costs? Where would the meetings be held, particularly in large geographical constituencies? Will people have to travel a long way to attend meetings?
If turnout at All Member Meetings is very high, then it could be very difficult to debate issues properly, as it is unlikely there would be time for everyone to speak. If turnout is not high, then why switch from a GC?
Meetings where members do not get to participate meaningfully can lead to disaffection. If a packed agenda of detailed issues can’t be debated properly because there are too many people wanting to speak, there is inevitably a danger that decisions end up being largely taken by the Executive Committee. This can concentrate power in the centre, and reduce members’ say.
GC structures can be better suited to holding open meetings to try to bring new members into the Party. For example, with a strong branch structure, local Parties could invite trade unionists who are not in the Party yet, or even the wider public, to join for some outward-focussed meetings. These meetings could be on particular policy discussions or campaigns. This could be more difficult under an AMM structure due to the sheer size of the meetings.