Letter: Individualism poses a problem for Labour
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Sir: It is perhaps not surprising that the issue of 'one man, one vote' is causing the Labour Party some difficulties. Behind this issue is a profound cultural difference whose resolution is central to the Labour Party's modern identity.
Liberal Democrat and Conservative ideas of representation derive from a tradition which is individualist, secular and English. It is usually traced back to Burke's Address to the Electors of Bristol, but in fact goes back to King Edward I. In this tradition, the representative, because he represents many disparate individuals, cannot speak for them all, and instead owes them, in Burke's phrase, his judgement.
The Labour tradition, though it may have been reinforced by Marxist notions of class solidarity, is collective, ecclesiastical and Scottish. The body represented, whether it be presbytery or trade union, is endowed with a collective personality. The views of this collective personality are ascertained by majority, and the delegate is then mandated to express them.
As formed by Scottish Presbyterians in the sixteenth century, this doctrine rested on fear of the sell- out. It was based on a profound distrust of power. After 400 years, John Smith is entitled to ask whether anything has changed.
Yours sincerely,
RUSSELL
House of Lords
London, SW1
3 June
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments