How has ALP factional influence changed since the 1980s?

In previous posts I have outlined the factional composition of the ALP at a state and national conference level. Those posts have focused on the previous decade. It is, however, worth understanding that the level of factional influence has changed significantly since the days of the early Hawke Government.

While there is a long history of factionalism in NSW, it was not until a series of interventions into state branches between 1970 and 1980 and the imposition of proportional representation that formalised factions truly started to emerge right across the country. In fact branches such as Western Australia and South Australia were largely unfactionalised until the 1980s.

Though the ALP Left had a rudimentary national organisation since the 1950s, there were no self-declared national factions until the 1984 ALP Conference when the National Centre-Left formed. The Labor Right had never organised beyond the state level and did not even have a formalised integrated national strategy by the end of 1986.

The following tables and charts illustrate my point. The first three tables are from a 1987 journal article National Factions and the ALP by Clem Lloyd and Wayne Swan. They provide an estimate of factional voting power at a national and state levels in 1986. Chart 1 is a compilation of publicly available figures from the 1984, 1986, 2002, 2004 and 2011 ALP National Conferences.

Table 1 – ALP National Factions (Voting Power expressed as a percentage)

	National Right	National Centre Left	National Socialist Left	National Non-aligned
National Executive before 1986 National Conference	39	28	33	–
National Executive after 1986 National Conference	43	21	36	–
National Conference 1984	30	28	41	–
National Conference 1986	41	19	39	–
National Parliamentary Labor Party (total)	41	24	27	7
Senate	29	29	38	4
House of Representatives	45	24	23	8

Table 2 – State and Territory Factions (Voting power expressed as a percentage

	Centre Unity/Labor Unity	Centre Left	Socialist Left	Centre (Qld)	Non-aligned
Queensland	25 [Old Guard]	6	45	29 [AWU]	5
New South Wales	66	–	34	–	–
Victoria	43	7 [Vic Independents]	50	–	–
Tasmania	22	16	49	–	13
South Australia	15	40	45	–	–
Western Australia	30	30 [Centre Coalition]	36	–	4
Northern Territory	45	24	23	–	15
Australian Capital Territory	40	10	47	–	–

Table 3 – ALP Ministers (Factional voting power expressed as a percentage)

	Centre Unity/Labor Unity	Centre Left/Vic Independents	Socialist Left	Non-aligned
National (Cabinet)	47	41	12	–
National (Ministry)	41	37	15	7
New South Wales	70	–	25	5
Victoria	32	21	32	15
South Australia	–	54	15	31
Western Australia	22	33	11	34

Chart 1 – Breakdown of ALP National Conference delegates by faction (factional voting power expressed as a percentage)

There are a number of conclusions that can be drawn from these tables.

Firstly, since the 1980s there has been a massive shift in factional voting power, particularly since the Centre-Left has ceased to exist. The Left has improved its position in Western Australia, Queensland, New South Wales, Northern Territory and Tasmania. The Left has lost ground while the Right has gained ground in South Australia and Victoria. Though the Left has gained considerably, the Right gained enough to get an outright majority in the mid-2000s at a national level. The base of that majority has been its control of New South Wales.

Secondly, the sidelining of unaligned party members by factions is not a recent phenomenon at all. Arguably the Centre-Left swallowed up much of what was the unaligned vote in becoming a faction, which in turn has been swallowed up by the Left and Right. Swan and Lloyd (1987) noted that:

At the national level, the unaligned component, which was quite important even five years ago, has diminished in influence. Non-aligned delegates have disappeared from the National Conference and the National Executive.

Since the rise of national factions in the early 1980s, the level of influence by various factions has changed dramatically. Factionalisation and polarisation has spread to the rest of the country from the eastern states. The level of influence each faction will continue to change over the coming years.

The move towards greater direct elections is likely to mean less factional stability as greater contestability is introduced and increased levels of proportionality associated with these direct elections could result in the creation of new groupings. This will all depend on what occurs at the ALP National Conference in July where party reform will be debated.

How are state and territory ALP conferences structured?

The question of party reform is likely to dominate the upcoming ALP National Conference in July. While reform is undoubtedly needed, much of the commentary will be based on inaccurate information, in part because knowledge about party structures is not widespread.

It is important to understand that each state branch of the ALP has its own distinct structure. It can vary wildly from state to state. In some states, unions aren’t actually 50% of conference floor and in others committee members and the parliamentary party get many delegate spots. Furthermore, unions are not guaranteed 50% of the delegates at National Conference, “union delegates” are only elected indirectly through state and territory conferences.

This table from an ALP National Secretariat document provides a good overview of how each state and territory branch structures their conference:

State/Terr Conference/Convention	NSW	Vic	Qld	WA	SA	Tas	ACT	NT
Annual frequency	1	2	1	1	1	1	1	1
Specified timing	Oct	May, Oct	Jun	None	None	Aug	Jun/Jul	Jun
Union delegates	445	300	211	150	100	100	92	33
— as percentage of total	50.0%	49.5%	50.0%	50.0%	50.0%	46.7%	46.5%	43.4%
FEA/FEC delegates	144	300	194	0	0	100	0	0
— allocation of delegates	Fixed: 3/FE	Proportional Ratios: 9,7,5/FE		n/a	n/a	Fixed & Prop.	n/a	n/a
— elected how	FE Councils	Direct	Direct	n/a	n/a	Direct	n/a	n/a
— elected when	Apr, annual Jul/Aug, odd yrs		Every 3 yrs	n/a	n/a	May, annual	n/a	n/a
State/terr electorate delegates	186	0	0	0	92	0	0	0
— allocation of delegates	Fixed: 2/FE	n/a	n/a	n/a	Prop. Max 4/SE	n/a	n/a	n/a
— elected from	SE Councils	n/a	n/a	n/a	Direct	n/a	n/a	n/a
	Apr, annual	n/a	n/a	n/a	Aug, odd yrs	n/a	n/a	n/a
Local branch delegates	0	0	0	148	0	0	92	33
— allocation of delegates	n/a	n/a	n/a	Proportional	n/a	n/a	0.1/member	0.1/member
— elected when	n/a	n/a	n/a	Aug/Sep, annual	n/a	n/a	May, annual	< Sep, annual
Delegates elected postal or in person	Person	Person	Person	Person	Person	Postal	Person	Person
Total geographic member delegates	330	300	194	148	92	100	92	33
— as percentage of total	37.1%	49.5%	46.0%	49.3%	46.0%	46.7%	46.5%	43.4%
FPLP Caucus — elected	16	2	1	1	0	1	3	2
FPLP Caucus — ex officio	0	2	0	0	1	1	0	0
SPLP (or TPLP) Caucus — elected	16	0	0	1	0	1	0	0
SPLP (or TPLP) Caucus — ex officio	0	2	2	0	1	2	8	2
Entire caucus are delegates	No	No	No	No	No	No	Yes	Fed only
Municipal delegates	0	0	3	0	0	0	0	0
— method	n/a	n/a	1 Ex off, 2 elect	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a
Total parliamentary delegates	32	6	6	2	2	5	11	4
— as percentage of total	3.6%	1.0%	1.4%	0.7%	1.0%	2.3%	5.6%	5.3%
Admin/officials	34	0	5	0	2	1	0	0
— method	All Admin	n/a	Ex officio	n/a	State Sec, Pres	State Sec	n/a	n/a
Policy	27	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
— method	Ex officio	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a
Women’s	3	0	3	0	0	0	0	3
— method	Ex officio	n/a	Direct	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	Elect conf
Young Labor	16	0	3	0	4	2	3	3
— method	Elected YL conf	n/a	Elected YL conf	n/a	Direct2	Direct postal	Elect YL AGM	Elect conf
Indigenous	0	0	0	0	0	6	0	0
— method	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	Elect, fixed/FE	n/a	n/a
Platform Committee	3	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
— method	Ex officio	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a
Total policy/party delegates	83	0	11	0	6	9	3	6
— as percentage of total	9.3%	0.0%	2.6%	0.0%	3.0%	4.2%	1.5%	7.9%
Total delegates	890	606	422	300	200	214	198	76
Nat Conf delegates	108	86	72	42	34	22	6	6
— per State/Terr conf delegate	8	7	6	7	6	10	33	13
Nat Conf delegates elected how	56/44% SC/FEs	100% Conf	100% Conf	100% State Exec	100% Conv	50/50% SC/DE	100% Conf	100% Conf

1 ‘Person’ includes ballots with a postal provision for regional areas.
2 SA YL treated as a state electorate, 4 is assuming maximum allocation.
3 In some branches, union votes are weighted so the number of delegates present at conference will be less.

One thing that is clear from the table is that NSW has the least rank-and-file input into its conference and those delegates are a) not directly elected and b) the allocation is fixed, not proportional. It is a gerrymander that is out of line with all other states. A change to that structure will have flow on effects nationally.

With a clearer understanding of how the structure of the ALP actually works, it will be easier to identify the real barriers to a democratic party and push a more effective reform agenda.

No Labor Right majority does not guarantee a left-wing agenda or party reform

This morning, The Age carried an exclusive story claiming the Labor Right had lost its ALP National Conference majority, based on internal party numbers. The possible loss had been couched in a Guardian Australia article and I did a rough estimate many months ago that suggested numbers would be close.

No final breakdown has been provided so it is unclear whether the Queensland Old Guard is counted in the Right camp or how close the margin is. The lack of a Right majority, however, does not guarantee that the Left’s agenda, particularly on reform, will get up, even with the support of unaligned delegates.

While The Age spins a tale of independents controlling the balance of power, it is far more likely that sub-groupings in the Left and Right will be courted to split off on contentious issues. They may be “bought off” by Labor leadership giving them concessions on issues they care about. Independent delegates are unlikely to be more than a handful at most and they are not an organised grouping.

Neither faction is a homogenous group and each is made up a number of sub-groups with different stances on a range of issues. On a range of issues, there is no factional consensus. Party reform is one such issue where there is no consensus on the detail. For example, the NSW Left did not bind on party reform proposals at the last NSW State Conference because left-wing unions could not agree to John Faulkner’s proposals.

For a pro-reform agenda to get up activists must be disciplined and strategic. Common ground needs to be found with left-wing unions and antagonising them by talking about how bad “union influence” is only makes reform less likely.

There are a range of possible reforms and actions that could gain broad support, including from the unions. These reforms could include:

• Cross-preferencing to ensure no Right majority on ALP National Executive
• Direct election of rank-and-file National and State Conference delegates by members (not by Federal Electorate Council or State Electoral Council delegates)
• Directly electing Presidents at a State level and giving them and National Presidents full voting rights
• Entrenching the direct election of Parliamentary leader

This is not an exhaustive list but they are achievable outcomes that will have a long lasting impact and help make the party more contestable. Arguably ending the Right majority on National Executive is the most important as it makes real reform of the NSW ALP possible through an intervention and will flow through to future National Conferences.

Rather than seeing this as a one-off chance to push for everything, the priority should be to ensure lasting changes that ensure that Right never has an absolute majority again. This Conference is a chance to make that happen. If that chance is lost, it may not be regained for decades. It means the focus should be on a set of changes that will bring together a majority pro-reform coalition that will support lasting change. That coalition will require left-wing unions as allies.

Activists should not get ahead of themselves. Making control of the party contestable is the most important long-term outcome that may come from this Conference. It means being cautious and willing to compromise as it is easy to peel off a few delegates and wipe out a pro-reform majority. Whether this can all be pulled off is yet to be seen.

UPDATE 24/6/15: Mike Smith previews National Conference and rightfully points out that the tight numbers and the leakage of votes are likely to lead to negotiation and compromise, not unaligned delegates determining the order of the day.

UPDATE 6/7/15: The Guardian quotes party sources saying the ALP National Conference delegate breakdown is 196 Left, 197 Right, 4 unaligned.

Only a small number of union members are opting into (British) Labour Party affiliation

I have previously written about the push to change how unions affiliate to the Labor Party. Currently unions affilate on behalf of their membership but there have been calls to change this so individuals must opt-in to be counted for affiliation. British Labour has adopted it and there are advocates within the ALP pushing for it to be embraced here.

The big question has always been: how many affiliated union members will opt-in? In the 2010 Labour leadership election, 238,618 union members cast a vote but over two million ballots were mailed out. Any opt-in process would mean the number of voters would fall significantly. Estimates had ranged from 25,000 to 80,000 but a recent news article suggests it might be lower.

The New Statesman has reported that in London, only 1,197 members of affiliated unions have opted in. To give some context, Labour’s largest affiliated union, Unite, has 200,000 members in London and the most recent publicly available data indicates that 21% of Labour Party members are in London.  With Labour’s membership now in excess of 220,000, affiliated union members seem likely to be less than 10% of the vote in the upcoming British Labour leadership contest.

There are still two months left for union members to opt-in for the leadership ballot with 12 August being the last day to register. It, however, seems that even 25,000 may not be reached considering Unite has only just started getting members to opt-in since the election.

If the number of union members that affiliate to British Labour for the contest is tiny, it seems likely that the enthusiasm for opt-in affiliation amongst many in the ALP will disappear. It is possible that it will evolve into a much clearer debate about whether the current labourist model should be ditched and the party should move to a One Member One Vote model. Each model has its problems and while “breaking the link” is often floated by those who decry trade union influence, the Nordic experience of cutting links shows that the result is not always predictable and may not be the best outcome.

Whoever wins in the British Labour leadership won’t really matter to the ALP but the number of union members who opt-in and participate in the election will. We should pay attention to the contest because it will shape the ongoing debate about the ALP-union link and whether the “labour party” model is truly dead.

UPDATE 16/6/15: GMB have said 10,000 members have registered as affiliated members and Unite is said to have similar numbers, however, Labour says only 2,500 have completed the process & paid a fee.

UPDATE 24/06/15: LabourList has been provided with the numbers of members and supporters. So far only 9,115 registered supporters and 3,788 affiliated supporters will be able to vote. Total Labour Party membership is 246,469.

UPDATE 12/07/15: Unite is claiming 50,000 members have opted in as affiliated supporters.

UPDATE 15/07/15: Unite has stated it is aiming to get 70,000 members to become affiliated supporters by August 12.

UPDATE 17/07/15: The Evening Standard is claiming it has seen figures suggesting 65,000 union members have registered.

UPDATE 12/08/15: The latest breakdown is 70,000 registered supporters (16%), 92,000 affiliated supporters (21%), 282,000 members (64%)

UPDATE 13/08/15: The Labour Party has revealed total figures of those who applied for a vote: Affiliated: 189,703, Registered: 121,295, Members: 299,755, Total: 610,753.

Blue Labour and the Left

Blue Labour has a bad reputation in left-wing circles. Many perceive it to be racist, conservative, patriarchal and anti-state, summed up with the view that it is about “flag, faith and family”. While there has been widespread criticism of Blue Labour by many sections of the British Labour left, concern not only exists in Britain. For example, I helped organise a Fabian Society event with Maurice Glasman, a key figure in Blue Labour, in Sydney and got the NSW Left to promote. There was some criticism that we should not be promoting such an event.

Understandably a lot of the hesitation comes from what people think of Glasman on issues of national identity and a perception that Blue Labour is about social conservatism. The framing of Blue Labour as a “radical conservative” tradition has not helped win fans on the broader Left. Many are uncomfortable with what he has said about immigration and nationalism in particular, dislike of how he framed the middle-class Fabian and working-class traditions of the political wing of the labour movement in highly gendered terms.

But to dismiss everything Glasman and Blue Labour has said is wrong and foolish. There is a lot from Blue Labour’s analysis to draw on and much of it is already in common use. For example, the idea of community organising and building a relational approach has already taken hold in parts of the Left here, most notably through the Sydney Alliance. Glasman has been heavily involved with London Citizens, the London counterpart to Sydney Alliance. Similarly, focusing on the common good is nothing new with Australian academic David McKnight talking about similar issues and using the same language nearly a decade ago.

Blue Labour’s focus on importance of relationships, place and work also has much to offer. They are all fundamental to personal identity and anchor our lives. Maurice Glasman has also championed ideas of mutuality, reciprocity, solidarity and community ownership, all drawn from important Left traditions that some argue has been lost.

Many in Left may feel uncomfortable with Glasman’s suggestion that it should ditch talk about equality. It is not because Glasman is opposed to equality but rather he argues for most people it is an abstract concept rather than being grounded in everyday life and common sense. This everyday politics and common sense has more in common with those associated with Stuart Hall and Marxism Today than the conservative Right.

Blue Labour also draws on Karl Polanyi, who arguably should be to social democrats what Hayek is to the free market Right, particularly his concerns about commodification. It is most powerful because its language about commodification is something that much of the Left has lost. It is the ‘moral critique of capitalism’ that historian Frank Bongiorno argues Labor has lost. The resistance to the dehumanising effect of the commodification of labour is a fundamental part of organised labour. That is the element of conservatism within the Left, resistance to the radical nature of free market liberalism. The Left has always sought to decommodify education, health care through guaranteeing universalism and rejecting basing value on economic benefits of decisions and actions.

In many ways aspects of Blue Labour could serve as a powerful and useful critique of the politics of the Hawke-Keating era and its top down, elitist and market driven politics. Nostalgia for those politics still runs deep despite it being the source of many of the ALP’s current problems.

While there is much from Blue Labour that is of use, there are many aspects I disagree with, most notably immigration and nationalism. Even supporters have acknowledged its shortcomings in Australia. For example, Nick Dyrenfurth has said this on immigration.

There are also questions about Blue Labour’s vision for the role of the state and communities. David Walker has rightly pointed out that while there is a focus on power, the two unanswered questions are: who pays? and what about professional skill? What happens when the community and those with expertise disagree? Windfarms and floridation are two immediate examples that come to mind. It is also unclear about who gets to define what the ‘common good’ is and how. It reinforces my belief that while Blue Labour has a strong critique but it does not offer a lot of good solutions.

I am also wary of Glasman’s idolisation of Germany. Mark Blyth has highlighted that the German economic miracle is far from one. It has relied on freezes in real wages, an increased labour force from the intergration of East Germany and the impact of the Euro making German exports more competitive. The German social market economy was designed afer the Second World War in response to the perceived threat of socialism. Its basis, ordo-liberalism, seeks a competitive enterprise economy.

Furthermore, he points out that not every country can be a Germany and run a surplus, some need to run deficits, just as for someone to save, someone else needs to spend. This idealisation of Germany risks generalising ideas, policies and institutions that cannot be generalised.

Blue Labour also seemingly has little to say about the challenges we face. It is unclear what it has to say about the impact of technology and how it is transforming the economy and society. Can technology aid its vision of strengthening relationships and a sense of place or is it disruptive? What are its implications of technology for the future of work and what does that mean for its vision? Then there’s challenges across the Western world such as climate change and an ageing population, let alone how to grapple with the waves of mass migration caused by conflict (and soon climate change).

If a Blue Labour approach was to be adopted in Australia, it is unlikely it would look the same as its counterpart in Britain. The historian Frank Bongiorno has argued that we had our own version Blue Labour through Mark Latham. I’m not sure given Latham’s tendency towards neoliberalism, albeit tinged with working-class nostalgia and contempt for anything associated with the New Left.

Whatever the future holds for Blue Labour, there are aspects of it that the Left can draw on. The Left should embrace its moral critique of capitalism which much of the social democratic Left has lost. Rejecting abstract notions and a focus on the everyday (place, relationships, work) to reconnect with people are also important. However, for all that it can offer, Blue Labour does not provide any answers to the bigger challenges we face in the 21st century and it is trapped by its own romanticism and idealisation.