On leadership, teams and the grassroots

When I was out on the doorstep last week, I thought we, the Labour Party, were running a really positive, unified election campaign. A week later, with the Labour leadership contest already zig-zagging through the party like a drunken comet, I wonder what went wrong within the party itself. Maybe I am just disgusted with all the mudslinging at Ed Miliband. I feel the mud is oozing from my computer and TV screen, and it is seeping too much into my life and making me a very unkind and grumpy person. So I am asking questions, without having the answers, but some things do remind me of what happened in places I used to work in. Of course, any resemblance to real life is purely coincidental...

Leadership and teams

Of course Ed Miliband made mistakes. He made loads of them, some small, some real big ones. To err is human, after all, to forgive not possible in politics? For me, the biggest one was Scotland, where events were just allowed to happen, while more engagement by Ed and the Shadow Cabinet as well as better policies for Scotland could have made a difference. However, a leader does not exist in a bubble, ok, in this case maybe a bit in the Westminster bubble, but he (using he here since I am mostly talking about Ed) has a team, or most likely more than one. 

Did Ed ever have a loyal team? Can a party leader ever feel comfortable when so many of those surrounding him (especially in the Shadow Cabinet) are after his job (that’s the same in other parties and in business)?  From talking to him at a meeting that was about a serious and contentious issue, I never got the feeling that Ed was in any way unwilling to be challenged, but he listened to our arguments, asked questions, and told us where he disagreed with us. I also read that Ed led what is called a very inclusive leadership style. So why do former colleagues now come out of the woodwork, loudly attacking policies they agreed to and campaigned for seemingly enthusiastically only a few days ago, and discard them like old chocolate wrappers? Worse, did they let the unpaid but enthusiastic footsoldiers (ie the members) spend their spare time doing all the canvassing, while not believing in the policies themselves? Did they never tell Ed before that they did not like them? Either this is just very undignified electioneering for the leadership now, or there must have been quite a lot of syncophancy going on. There is always pressure to agree, to come to a decision, sometimes it is not so much pressure, but more of an urgent need to get something done, so yes, sometimes you do agree to something you aren’t that comfortable with in a rush, but if it’s something that jars with your values, than you should be courageous enough to fight against it. I want politicians to stand up for their beliefs.

Even leaders need support, in public and in private – without a good supportive team or teams they can rely on, leaders cannot lead. Only in the last two years or so, did our team in the Labour Party in Northern Ireland develop into an effective fighting force. We are still growing as a team, but the one thing I know is that we can rely on each other while still being able to argue and disagree. We have each other’s back, so to speak. With all these critics crawling out of the woodwork I wonder what was happening amongst the party’s leading team/s, the Shadow Cabinet and Parliamentary Labour Party? We all wanted to win this, right? ‘It’s brutal at the bottom and lonely at the top’, I wrote in February when musing about the election. While enthusiastic people on Twitter ran Twitterstorms against the Tories and for Ed, did the leading team do enough to support him?  I’ve seen this neglect in workplaces, where somebody at the top was left alone to fight our battle, and it ain’t nice, I am telling you! 

If people thought that Ed wasn’t a good leader for years, why did they not challenge him to a leadership contest say two years ago?  Why were they seemingly happy when they were not? Is it a case of ‘no guts’?  The same happened after Gordon Brown stepped down. Suddenly he was a monster. But if he had been SUCH a monster, why continue working for him? Most politicians never end up on the dole, they easily find a job through connections, so why stay and suffer?

With so many people apparently knowing Labour’s defeat before it happened (you always know in hindsight...), if this really was the case, then there was a bit of self-fulfilling prophecy going on. If you can’t believe you can win, you won’t. Certainly to me it seems that everybody was enthusiastic and positive, and Ed more so than anybody. So, if there was worry out the outcome, why did this worry not reach Ed? Even if Ed didn’t listen (which I don’t believe), surely, something should have got to a man I consider being genuine, kind, caring and sincere.  If nothing got to him, then maybe the structures are wrong?  A leader is not a manager. He is supposed to be the public face and the visionary of the party, while other people do the managerial, practical stuff.  These are two different shoes, and I have worked in a place where these two were mixed up, and it caused endless discussions and problems.

Of course, the leader should know what is going on, and intervene in management if things go pear-shaped, but in a big organisation, that is often tricky. Information gets lost and never reaches the leader, gatekeepers withhold information to play their own power-games or for other more benign reasons, or information is misinterpreted. There was a particularly nasty article recently, which claimed important polling information was not passed on. Now, this sounds like shooting oneself in the foot big time, and it does defy logic, so that’s why I am suspicious of that article, but if people withhold information, then really, that should be looked at. If information doesn’t flow, then we have a problem. This leads me to the next issue.

Party democracy and the grassroots

I wonder if party structures stifle leaders and the leadership team?  Did we lose because our party structures are too centralised and allow little input into policy from the grassroots, CLPs and regions? 

Despite Ed’s ambition to create a movement and to have Labour in the community, this didn’t happen. Many CLPs are poorly staffed and rely solely on part-time workers and volunteers. This means, the party cannot support the people as they should, and is barely visible in the community. No wonder that voters think that the only time they see party members is before the elections.

Not much information flows through the party to the top – when we talked to Ed directly in January, there were quite a few things he had never heard before, and we’ve been telling people for years!

Labour needs to become much more a grassroots movement than it is now. Of course a party needs structure and leadership, but too many layers of structure and no say for members kills any vibrancy, new ideas and the connection with the electorate. 

Conference seems to serve only the press, we show them how united (and bland) we are – it allows no dissent, no new ideas, no interesting speeches, only repetitive ‘I am a Prospective Parliamentary Candidate from...’ pre-written and well-staged lines. Women’s Conference is much better with open mike sessions, because there is less press in attendance. The leadership actually hears what ordinary women members are saying. 

When I went to the Special Conference in Birmingham in March this year, I felt really disappointed. The conference itself was great, but far too short, and there was only one Q&A session with Ed Balls and Rachel Reeves instead the promised workshops and more engagement with members. Amongst delegates, there was a sense of ‘is this it?’

During the election campaign, I believe Ed really came to life when he was out on the campaign trail, talking to CLPs and members, but sadly we never saw much of it before. I don’t think that’s just Ed, there are some of the party leadership who actually talk to members at conference, but not all of them – and fewer ‘mingle’ in less formal settings. If you are lucky, you might get a visit from an MP or Shadow Cabinet member in your constituency – some are more amenable to it than others.

At conference, we should have a day where there is no press at Conference Hall. Let the members talk freely, let there be fierce debate, and let it all out. No prepared speeches, no staged messages of support, just honest words. This would do the party a lot of good, and would connect the leaders to their members again. There is too much elite-thinking, hierarchy, ‘heirs to the succession’ beliefs, and aloofness.

We now hear too much about the leadership contenders, but not enough about us, the party members. We need to be asked, we need to write, blog, speak up and reclaim the party. We are the party. We pay our dues, come out to support candidates, travel to conference, and many of us worked their behinds off to get Labour elected with no pay and no sleep.  

Maybe that’s the most important bit about the leadership contest now. Perhaps that’s the answer I am looking for. It’s about us – the members!