Party Democracy — or Bureaucracy?

from Labour's Voice We make no apology for again drawing our readers' attention to the campaign for a democratic Greater London Labour Party. The outcome will directly concern party members througheut the country. ~ $ 4 Firstly , hew the basic issue — céntral bureaucracy vs regional democracy ~ is resclved in Lendon is likely to determine the future pattern of. development cf the Labour party in the rest ef the country. If a rigid, centralist structure is imposed on the Party members in London after Lh years ef relative autanomy — then it is unlikely that Scotland, Wales or the North East will achieve the independence they are now demanding. We should remember, incidentally, that autonomy in Lendon was not unsuccessful. The Party machine was able to capture and hold the L.C.C. for cver thirty years DESPITE the Tory Government in Whitehall for most of this period and DESPITE the fall nf the Labour Government in 1951. Labour lost pewer only in the 1967 electia@n campaign organised from Transpert House. Def. t then may have been inevitable, but many Londen activists feel that at least the Inner London Education Authority could have been held if the Campaign had been run under local control; Comprehensive educatinn ceuld thus have been saved for Londen, Secondly, whatever solution is propesed this will have tc be ratified by the National Conference of the Party. It is important, therefore, that affiliated organisations throughout the country should understand the issues involved so that they will be able to make the right decisicn. Thirdly, the popular trend in national politics is tcwards regicnal devolution. Party crganisation shculd move with the times rather than tyr to put the clock back,