Tonight we had our barely-quorate AGM of the Broadfield Labour party, with predictable results but (I hope) some unexpected consequences.

The predictable elements were the small attendance and the meandering chaotic conversations. The low attendance is not as much of a problem as it might seem; I know a few of the regular attendees were genuinely unable to make it, so they were duly nominated to arduous officer positions in their absence, as tradition dictates.

Also, membership within the branch is significantly up on last year and that is without any concerted effort within the ward – only a a concerted effort in the constituency which we have contributed to and benefitted from.

Jayne is now a delegate to the constituency, which should be fun. She has been turning up with me as often as possible but now she can take part properly and nominate, move, vote and all the other things that make it a bit more worthwhile attending. It also means she can be nominated herself, which would be even more fun, given her tendancies towards speaking her mind.

As for the branch, I now find myself in the position of chairing it which I am actually looking forward to. At the constituency AGM I fully intend to make sure I am out of the firing line when any officer posts are flying around. If necessary I shall hide behind Jayne and let her get volunteered (she has to learn the hard way. Cruel to be kind and all that sort of thing.) because I would like to see the local branch thrive and want to concentrate on that.

I have chaired a branch before and treated it the way many do in that position – followed the routine of meetings, stuck to the comfortable pattern of agendas, apologies, matters arising etc. and counted the days to the next AGM – but this time I feel like doing something different.

For a start, I want to get in touch with all those members who do not come to meetings and find out why, and then find out what it is they would like to participate in instead of the usual meetings, and suggest that we do those things instead of having meetings. If it turns out that most members actually want meandering, chaotic discussions then we will just have an agenda that says:

1. Meandering, chaotic discussion
2. Close of meeting

At least that way, the more anal amongst us can stop being frustrated that the meeting is not sticking to the agenda.

While looking at documents about constituency development plans last year I found out something interesting. There is nothing that says you have to hold meetings every month, and nothing that says that any meeting has to follow the boring old apologies, minutes, matters arising routine. The only thing a branch absolutely has to do is hold an AGM and notify the constituency of its officers.

If there is nothing to discuss, then don’t have a meeting and talk about nothing if nobody wants to!

If there is something everyone really wants to discuss don’t avoid it just because it is not on the agenda!

Don’t put something on the agenda because it has always been on the agenda!

I know it might sound a bit New Labour, but I think that a regular meeting which has an identical agenda every single time is dull. Not only is it dull but it is cosy. It discourages original thought and discourages new people from wanting to join in. If 90% of our members are not interested in something why should we continue just for the other 10% – most of whom are just going through the motions anyway?

By this time next year I would love to see us with more members in Broadfield, but I would like it even more to see more of the members we already have. If I could go to the next AGM knowing that we had had just one meeting, activity or social event with, say, 25 members of the Broadfield party all taking part I would be perfectly satisfied.

For a while now I have felt that our problem in the Labour party, and movement, has been that a great part of it has withered away and just left a few people in official positions without the structures which used to support them and encourage them. If that sounds a bit anti-Blair, it is actually an attempt to agree with some of the things he was saying when he came to talk to us last year. He realises (I think) that the way to strengthen the party is to do it from the bottom up. Part of the suspicion about the whole New Labour experiment is that it was done from the top down.

I don’t see how any of us have the right to criticise it too much if we have been unwilling to try and do anything progressive ourselves. If we do not try to force change from what everyone likes to call the grassroots then the only change we will get is from above.

Of course I did not say any of this at the AGM. Had there been any other nominations and the need for a vote I would have given everyone the choice between routine and the vast unknown, but the usual method for choosing officers was used. (As soon as one nomination gets made, everyone else finds their shoelaces or the ceiling fascinating)

Perhaps I am being unduly influenced by reading The Dice Man at the moment…