The disclosure by Peter Watt, the former General Secretary of the Labour Party, that Jack Dromey, deputy general secretary of the Transport and General Workers Union, was to be offered a safe Parliamentary seat just before the general election expected in autumn 2007, in exchange for a £1 million contribution from his union, is deeply disturbing. It confirms the worst suspicions that many have that political parties are sometimes corrupt in their internal procedures and that the internal democracy, to which they all like to make claim, is sometimes a sham. What gives the disclosure such force in this case is not only the impeccability of the source, but also the fact that it is reinforced by widespread allegations of similar shenanigans in other parliamentary selections and in financial management and the handling of the annual conference. This matters not only because such practices, if true, are clearly dishonest and improper and bring any political party into disrepute, but also because they fundamentally undermine the the morality and integrity on which public confidence depends. And, most worryingly of all, the commercialisation of politics over the last 2-3 decades is intensifying such corrupt behaviour.

Other improper practices which breach the rules of political organisations if not the letter of the law include:
* requiring regional and other party officials to canvass on behalf of the preferred candidate selected by No.10 and the party machine (when party officials are the civil service of the party and are meant to be kept free of factional disputes and personal selections),
* giving membership lists to the preferred candidate weeks or even months before other candidates, thus giving the former a crucial advantage in being able to approach the relevant voters long before others,
* tampering with postal vote boxes (as was revealed for example in the recent Erith and Thamesmead selection),
* using party officials at annual conference to brief delegates to support the official line, contrary to their constituency mandate or their own inclinations, and even leading off reluctant delegates to meet and be briefed by Ministers just before votes,
* taking control of party finances out of the hands of the elected treasurer and vesting control in an unelected secret board appointed by No.10 and the party machine.
These are only a few examples, but enough to raise very serious concerns about the running of political parties. At least two major reforms are needed. First, a rule-book of members’ rights should be drawn up which sets out the rights and powers which all members are entitled to, including the right of all party officials to be protected from factional pressures exerted by the leadership. Secondly, the role of Party Ombudsman should be created and filled by a person elected by the membership, not appointed by the leader. The Ombudsman would then have the duty and the powers to enforce the rule-book, to protect the rightful interests of members and party staff, to respond to complaints from members, and to require procedures to be changed where they conflicted with the principles and ideals of the party.

Bookmark to: