richard bakerRichard Baker MSP is standing to be Deputy Leader of the Scottish Labour Party. He plans to ensure that members direct the party’s policy platform and are empowered to lead local campaigning.


During my campaign to become the Deputy Leader of Scottish Labour I have heard a great deal about devolution.

We have rightly discussed our position on devolution from Westminster to Holyrood, and in turn the urgent need to devolve power from Holyrood to our councils and communities. What has been missed has been the need to devolve power to our greatest resource – our membership.

I have spoken about my desire to ensure that it is our members who decide our policy programme and direct our campaigning. For too long our members have been treated as foot-soldiers rather than a key component of of strategic planning and activity.

I have said that I would convene regional policy conferences where the agenda was set by local members. In my opinion the people who know their communities best and can shape policy that reflects local needs and ambitions are our members. They are the people who need to set agendas not just follow.

I also want to ensure that our CLPs are properly recognised and supported to promote campaigning. While of course we need to have a strong message for all of Scotland based on Labour values, we must have a far more decentralised approach to campaign strategy. As part of my plans for regional policy and campaigning conferences I would invite CLP Chairs and Secretaries for regular meetings to discuss their concerns and their ideas giving our CLP structures their rightful place as local champions for our party.

For me, the job of Deputy Leader is about being a champion for our membership and ensuring that across our nation Labour Party members are trusted and empowered to start driving change in our party and our communities.

The Policy Forum process needs to be revisited to ensure that our membership do not just ‘approve’ policy but they invent, improve and promote it. For far too long our members have said that they want to direct the policy platform and if elected I will make that happen. If members in Scotland want to debate and influence reserved policy areas they should be able to do that. This might mean that our leadership has to listen and respond to criticism and challenge. It is time that was seen as an advantage not a drawback.

The old ways of command and control favoured by others have to give way to a new progressive politics where listening turns into action.

Our activists have gone through bruising times recently. Despite the polls painting a bleak picture they still campaigned hard and it is time that the loyalty and commitment shown was matched by the leadership of the party giving our local parties more autonomy and financial support.

I propose that rather than centralising campaign spending we ensure we give our local campaigns the money to do the job. Our councillors and activists know what local priorities are and we should support them.

We need to recognise that debate is happening in different ways. It’s time our party adapted to let members get involved in the policy-making process through more innovative channels. At a UK level, the Your Britain website allowed members and supporters to put forward views, opinions and ideas about what they wanted a Labour government to look like. I am keen to make use of new technology to make manifesto development more accessible in Scotland as well.

Our party is at its best when its membership is united and confident. Through this new progressive politics, we can be that party again. Locally driven policy, directed by our members and their communities, looking forward and promising action on the evils of inequality and division.

Members tell me that they are hungry for change. Well, so am I and my pledge is that I will not rest until that change is delivered.


You can follow Richard on Facebook and Twitter, or email

Related Posts

5 thoughts on “Putting members back in charge

  1. Democratisation and empowerment of the citizenry are ends in themselves but when applied to the members of the party we have to take into account that the party is not the nation.

    First problem – party members lack the expertise to be the determinants of macro-economic policy. That is why democratic parties have meritocratic elements and hierarchy so that the membership may be led by those with the appropriate skills sets (as a result of education and experience).

    Second problem – With the collapse of mass employment of the electro-mechanical industrial era (over last several decades) composition of party membership has changed dramatically Membership now has a great focus upon service provision either as providers or consumers. There is now much less focus by members upon wealth creation.

    Labour is part of the following problems.

    1. Government does not invest nearly enough in infrastructure and productive capacity.

    2. British citizenry through savings do not invest enough in infrastructural and productive capacity.

    What I hear from many politicians in the media is that we must seek more INWARD (ie foreign) investment.

    Will there ever be a time when a Labour politician will say that investment should come from the people?

    And if empowered to determine policy, and given the choice between spending on services (which is a form of consumption) or spending on infrastructure and productive capacity (ie investment) how many Labour Party members working in service provision or seeking to have services they used improve would vote to reduce funds for services so as to increase those for investment?

    Remember how there was talk of an investment bank then it all fizzled out? There is a serious problem here.

  2. Yes Richard, definitely agree about Policy Forum process being revisited and the need to use new technology. I also like the better focus on how activists can add value to overall successful strategy. Ona

  3. Hi, I feel the membership in the branches is not made aware of new members and members themselves have little contact with each other unless they have struck up a particular friendship. It is a very difficult balance because most of us have our other interests and family lives and step up to the mark when we need to be there. However, there is I think a thirst for discussion and ideas to be aired, just as you have stated in your article above. Members need to feel they belong to something that gives hope and inspiration.

  4. I agree with Kathleen steele out clp sec is run with one eye on the clock
    last week for the first time in my history instead of 7 members we had 27 people turn up some new members
    we had a good discussion going when the sec said that was or hour up
    this is the prince who wants to stand for msp for ayr
    need I say any more.

  5. I agree with Neil Clyne’s analysis of the need for more investment in infrastructure and productivity growth but not with his rather gloomy view that party members are unwilling to support this.

    Seems to me that Richard Baker’s push to reconnect with members may help the leadership to better understand local and national issues and benefit from the wide-ranging expertise present in our members. And the members may relish debates (such as Neil’s points) on key issues facing us.

Comments are closed.