Comments on: Peter Watt is wrong: Labour needs its members

By: Reclaiming membership (part 1): Paul Richards and the Lukes-Freire concept of oppression « Though Cowards Flinch

Sun, 17 Oct 2010 19:07:09 +0000

[…] in part 2: Reflecting on the conceptual limitations of the Watt-Painter debate about party membership: who gets to say what members are […]

By: Donny

Donny — Mon, 04 Oct 2010 01:35:36 +0000

Interesting that a Labour-supporting blog is pointing out the weaknesses of centralisation – it costs more and takes real influence further away from real people, so they identify with it less.

By: Chris Baldwin

Chris Baldwin — Fri, 01 Oct 2010 18:40:56 +0000

Labour doesn’t just need its members, Labour is its members (and the affiliated organisations). The task of the machine is to represent us.

By: Anthony Painter

Anthony Painter — Fri, 01 Oct 2010 10:09:45 +0000

Join the debate about party reform sparked by (the v.gracious) @PeterWatt123 http://bit.ly/a8MQF4 in my piece here http://bit.ly/926WhJ

By: Henry

Henry — Fri, 01 Oct 2010 09:42:30 +0000

What really matters is building a mass movement of grassroots activists who will campaign for the party & its values. Inspired by progressives in the US, organisations like 38 Degrees, Hope Not Hate have already done this here in the UK. The Labour Party, in opposition but with an inspiring new leader, now really have an opportunity here. Will they take it?

By: Solomon Hughes

Solomon Hughes — Fri, 01 Oct 2010 08:54:05 +0000

To me it seems like Peter Watt is proposing is a model for an “X Factor” type party, where the leadership makes decisions based on it’s perception of “the public” point of view – which is going to be the same focus-group driven, passive, heavily influenced by what press say today , New Labour approach. No intention for the Labour party to lead in politics, to set out principles or policies that might enthuse the membership. That Labour’s one time, long time Gen Sec should be so uninterested in the membership – it is pretty shocking. Peter Watt says “We use talking to members and membership recruitment as a proxy for listening to voters”. Well thank god Labour was able to resist the temptation of listening to it’s members for so long with Watt’s help – or the Labour government would have been stuck with unpopular policies backed by the members like, er, building council houses, not getting in bed with G Bush’s wars, not fawning over the bankers etc.

By: Peter Watt

Peter Watt — Thu, 30 Sep 2010 20:35:37 +0000

I’m glad to have started a debate! I am not arguing that the Party doesn’t need it’s members. On the contrary I argue that we should support members to be more self sustained in their activities with more online tools like the fantastic online phonebanks. But I don’t think that we should concentrate on building a mass MEMBERSHIP Party as evdence points to this being impossible to achieve – whatever welcome short term membership bounce we get. I argue for a mass Party that is more innovative about how it engages with the public including their involvement in selections for candidates and Leaders. Now you might disagree but that is hardly calling for a downgrading of the Party – on the contrary.

By: ikeaddy

ikeaddy — Thu, 30 Sep 2010 18:16:58 +0000

RT @leftfootfwd: Peter Watt is wrong: Labour needs its members http://bit.ly/bvAxyy If you support Labour, read this.

By: Peter Watt

Peter Watt — Thu, 30 Sep 2010 18:02:20 +0000

RT @leftfootfwd Peter Watt is wrong: Lab needs its mems http://bit.ly/bvAxyy << I didn't say we didn't need our members http://bit.ly/c2hetO

By: Deborah Segalini

Deborah Segalini — Thu, 30 Sep 2010 18:01:08 +0000

I wonder how Peter Watt thinks we’re going to be able to support any kind of campaign without more members or activists. I know I could do with some in my constituency.