On of Blair’s main objectives as Labour leader has been to reform various areas of the constitution. Blair’s ‘reinterpretation’ of the Ideology of the Labour party, has led to a new Clause IV, which can be construed in many new ways due to its imprecise wording. For instance, the old clause IV stated that there must be ‘common ownership of the means of production’, where the new clause IV is much more open to capitalism stating that British society should not only have ‘high quality public services’ but it should also contain a ‘thriving private sector’ within it. With the new Clause IV, Blair can now define what the Labour party is striving for in line with his own political ambitions for the party, meaning that the leader does have a great deal of control over the ideological aspect of the labour party.
Blair has improved the image of the party with the media a great deal by reducing the power of the Trade Unions as the Labour party conference. The unions have just 50% of the vote, where they used to control 70%. This means that Labour can no longer be debased in the papers by a split-party vote. This means that the Unions now have less power over policy and the Donation Roll has began to be replaced by individual donors (e.g. Bernie Eccleston.) However, The Unions do still control half of the total vote at conferences and sponsor some Labour MPs. They are a representation of Labours traditional voters and so the party must now disregard them. This may be why the labour party has recently used the Trade Unions in consultation matters, such as the FBU pay dispute and the new minimum wage. Although Blair does control some power over the Union aspect of the party, the Unions themselves do still have some individual influence and control.
The membership aspect of the Labour party is an area where it is much harder to decide who has actually has control. Blair loses out to the party membership in one sense, as they are actively involved in policy making within the N.P.F. meaning that the leader cannot totally dominate that aspect of policy. However, the membership is uninformed and so can be (and are) completely exploited by Blair who used his wealth of Advisors, Informers and other specialists to gain the upper hand on the members. It is also true that the membership only accounts for 300,000 people which is quite a small amount compared to the minimum of 9,000,000 votes which must be received from the electorate in order to win an election. On the other hand, the O.M.O.V. system does allow members to have influence at the conference, and perhaps the most crucial point, it is the members of the Labour party who campaign for the Labour party and funds the party and so they must not be ignored by Blair. The MPs can also rebel against Blair, which causes embarrassment in the media. In this case, the leader by no means controls the membership aspect of the party, as it is the membership who has ultimately given the leader their mandate to control.
Blair is a key member of the N.E.C. and so not only has influence over policy but is instrumental is the selection of party candidates and the defining of Labour party conduct. This means that Blair is able to show patronage in the party by offering positions within the party to anyone he so wishes to. He also has control over the whipping system in order to get MP’s to vote with him, if they do not do this Blair can discipline his MPs in order to show control and to not let the party lose face. Blair also has influence over the media, as his press secretary controls what the papers are told about the government. Blair has also drawn up a ‘code of conduct’ since coming into power. He uses this to discipline Mps break the rules, (Mohammed Sarwar, Bob Wareing and Tommy Graham were suspended from the Labour party for reasons relating to financial/legal improprieties.) However, this does not mean that Blair is not accountable to the press, which is why he must control, the party so precisely at conference so as not to embarrass himself.
In conclusion, ‘Blairism’ has led to a much stricter control over the varying aspects of the party by the Labour leader, which has, if election results are to be taken into account, been very successful for the party on a whole. However, this may have been at the expense of socialism in the UK. Blair’s almost dictator like control over every aspect of the party is only counteracted by his more limited influence over the party membership, who he may be willing to follow. Blair currently sits with the biggest Labour rebellion in the history of his term in power hanging over his head, and Blair’s decision on a war with Iraq may well make it clear to what extent Blair feels obliged to listen to his party members and to what extent Blair just does what he likes.
