You are here: Home » Comment »

Making Labour Policy: Who calls the tune?

May 26, 2012 9:19 am

Author:

Tags:

Share this Article

Excellent election results and rising polls have brought a mood of unity and created space and time for serious work on policy. Francois Hollande’s victory shows that austerity is not the only option, and Labour must start to develop an alternative agenda, rejecting the Tory politics of resentment and division in favour of policies which are fair, principled and credible: on housing, crime, transport, health, schools, higher education, manufacturing, tax, defence, social care, equality, employment rights and the environment. We must tackle the tabloids on welfare, crime and immigration: people who want to be really nasty to scroungers, yobs and foreigners will vote Tory anyway, so we might as well take the moral high ground and give ourselves something worth fighting for.

But is the party’s policy-making system fit for purpose? Partnership in Power, launched in 1997, envisaged hundreds of discussions across the country, with members, affiliates and supporters feeding upwards through policy commissions to the national policy forum (NPF). The NPF has held just two rushed meetings in two years – leading the first representatives elected by one-member-one-vote to wonder why they bothered – but more alarmingly the nature of grassroots input has fundamentally changed.

Anecdotally many constituencies and branches have stopped sending contributions, whether formal resolutions or consensus notes from forums, because there is no sign that anyone listens. The impact is illustrated vividly in the list of 115 new submissions received at the May meeting of the prosperity and work commission. Just two were from local parties, in North-East Bedfordshire and Guildford. All the rest were from individuals, and of these only a quarter were members.

They are a fascinating mix of closely-reasoned arguments, strongly-held opinions, assorted rants, and musings on whether to join or leave the party, alongside some distressing personal stories about the welfare bureaucracy. Now clearly Labour must listen widely and reach beyond members into the community, and clearly not every member can attend local policy forums, where they exist. These messages matter. But we risk replacing collective conversations, inside and beyond the party, with atomised individuals firing off whatever is on their mind as they browse the website, alone. This is no way to build a manifesto.

The trend will be reinforced by the latest batch of consultation papers, published here. Constituencies are urged to send submissions by 8 June to inform an NPF meeting on 16/17 June , but four weeks’ notice is too short for many parties, leaving individual input as the only channel. I will argue that later contributions should be taken into account by the official structures, but in any case I am interested in views all the way through to conference. So please read the papers and respond, and copy comments to me as otherwise I may not see them.

Finally, on a more optimistic note, the reshuffle made significant changes at the top. Jon Cruddas will take over from Liam Byrne in co-ordinating a policy review hitherto shrouded in mystery, and Angela Eagle has been nominated to chair the NPF following Peter Hain’s return to the backbenches. I hope that they will bring new openness in engaging with members, and stronger dialogue with the volunteers on the ground. The next general election is at stake.

Ann Black is a member of the NEC and the National Policy Forum, currently standing for re-election.

Related posts:

  1. With Alexander, Labour is humming a new tune on foreign policy
  2. Shouting at the telly – policy-making in today’s Labour Party
  3. Better policy-making means better policies
  4. Making it…Against the Odds: tune in for tonight’s broadcast
  5. Rebuilding trust and integrity in policy making
  • Daniel Speight

    If it’s not working then maybe policy making should go back to the conference Ann. At the moment to most it seems policy is made by the leadership on the fly, so as to speak. At what point did the party ever agree to attacking welfare as Purnell and Byrne seem to have set party policy as.

    • treborc1

      And what is labours new policy why are we hearing they have changed, we need to know, well I need to know.

      from knowing a person who can work, without knowing what was wrong with him to hearing that do you know something fraud is not that high, is fibne now tell us what is behind that and what will labour do about it.

      I do not mind seeing doctors I use to see one every three years, so go for it every three years a doctors see’s me fine, but get rid of alter the WCA.

  • Brumanuensis

    Excellent piece, Ann. I’ll be voting for you in the NEC elections. 

    And amen to this:

    ‘We must tackle the tabloids on welfare, crime and immigration: people who want to be really nasty to scroungers, yobs and foreigners will vote Tory anyway, so we might as well take the moral high ground and give ourselves something worth fighting for’.

    The only question I’d like to raise is: does this demonstrate we should fold policy-making functions back into the NEC?  

    • Ann Black

       Yes, I agree absolutely and have said so.  The joint policy committee, supposed to steer the national policy forum, is poorly-attended and without effective lines of accountability to anywhere.  But I was told bluntly at the March NEC that “no-one wants the NEC to regain a role in policy-making”.  Impasse.

  • Amber Star

    “But is the party’s policy-making system fit for purpose? Partnership in Power, launched in 1997, envisaged hundreds of discussions across the country, with members, affiliates and supporters feeding upwards through policy commissions to the national policy forum (NPF). The NPF has held just two rushed meetings in two years – leading the first representatives elected by one-member-one-vote to wonder why they bothered…”
    ———————————
    Then more powers for the elected representatives are needed. Ann, do you have any suggestions which would give more strength to the position & proposals of our ‘one-member-one-vote’ elected representatives. Do they, individually or collectively, have the power to call a meeting, set the agenda etc.; or are our representatives merely window dressing?
    ——————————–
    “…but more alarmingly the nature of grassroots input has fundamentally changed.”
    ——————————–
    Isn’t that because we have elected representatives? Can’t we just trust our elected representatives to represent our views – or do I not understand their role in the policy making process?

    I am not being facetious. I am an active member & these are genuine questions. Ann, if you take the time to answer them – or to repspond to any of the comments made on this article, I will take you seriously. If you just use it as a forum for voicing a pretend concern for the thoughts of members, then I won’t.

    • http://members.labour.org.uk/blog/annblack Ann Black

       Hi Amber Star

      Most elected representatives try their hardest to reflect members’ views, whatever their own political perspective, but are constantly frustrated.  Three very easy steps would be (a) to give them contact details for constituency secretaries, so they can consult on policy documents and proposals to improve the system (b) give members contact details for their representatives (b) let them see what members, voters, branches, constituencies, unions etc have submitted to any consultation.  Believe it or not, after 15 years the only way we know what members are saying is if they copy submissions to us directly, or if we sit at Head Office and leaf through boxfiles of paperwork, not compatible with a day job outside politics and outside London.   It should be easy to make much of this available online, if the political will is there ….

  • Harry Barnes Email

    For the Refounding Labour “Consultation” Procedure, submissions were forwarded from (1) my Labour Party Branch, (2) an open Discussion Meeting we ran and (3) our Constituency Labour Party (CLP). The only feedbacks we received were acknowledgements and we never found out what other ideas had been submitted. Nothing we recommended was put into any of the material placed before Conference. I also attended two of the Consultation Meetings run by Regional Offices of the Labour Party where the final ideas that were gathered up arose from stream of conscousness efforts by groups sat around four or five different tables, as roughly noted down by one member of the group and explained as best they could by another member. We don’t know whether these bits and pieces ever reached there destination as we received no acknowledgements. The outcome of such types of “consultations” were then plonked upon delegates as they arrived at Conference and were used as a pretext to changes 25% of the rules of the Labour Party. If this wasn’t illegal, it was certainly immoral. The only welcome outcome is the subsequent departure of Peter Hain from the scene.

    We acted in a similar way over the “New politics. Fresh ideas” booklet and got the normal acknowledgment. Heaven knows what happened to that procedure.  Then the Constituency held an imitation of the Regional Consulation get-togethers and the notes that were taken then are likely to end up somewhere. But at the most we will receive an acknowledgement. I think it was supposed to be part of the Partnership Into Power “consultations”. But really most of us have given up on all this, after the fiasco over Refounding Labour.

    Around 1975 our CLP submitted a motion to Conference. Despite opposition from the Conference Arrangments Committee (CAC) and the National Executive Committee and failed attempts to challenge CAC reports, we finally got Conference to debate the item by successfully suspending the appropriate Standing Order and we easily carried the matter. But now it is like tredding porridge and downing.

Latest

  • Comment Where are the women over 50 on our TV screens?

    Where are the women over 50 on our TV screens?

    By Harriet Harman

    Most people like to think that we live in a society that is fair and equal but for some it is still not equal at all. When it comes to TV presenters, women disappear when they reach over the age of 50. As part of the work of the Older Women’s Commission, I wrote to the six main UK broadcasters asking them how many older women they employ on screen and behind the camera. The figures provided by broadcasters show [...]

    Read more →
  • Featured The Loneliness of the Long Distance Leader

    The Loneliness of the Long Distance Leader

    By Stefan Stern

    That’s it. Enough is enough. I try to be reasonable. But you can only push somebody so far. It’s time to sort this out once and for all. I am fed up with this huge and growing army of sycophants and cheerleaders constantly bigging up Ed Miliband, and making helpful or supportive interventions on his behalf. The list is endless. Let’s shine a spotlight on the guilty men and women. There’s… well, there’s… er… you know… er… thingy… on a [...]

    Read more →
  • Comment Europe We do not stigmatise your country, Deputy Prime Minister. It is you and your party we find distasteful

    We do not stigmatise your country, Deputy Prime Minister. It is you and your party we find distasteful

    By Rob Marchant

    Last Saturday a senior European politician wrote an article in the British press which made you want to shout at the computer screen. Not such an unusual event, you might think, but this was not a debater’s disagreement as one might have had with the viewpoint of a Tory, a Gaullist or a Christian Democrat. It was one which also left the reader feeling a bit nauseous. And that is because, rather than an honestly-expressed case justified with some evidence, it was [...]

    Read more →
  • News Watson urges investigation of “supressed” Leveson evidence – Media roundup: May 21st, 2013

    Watson urges investigation of “supressed” Leveson evidence – Media roundup: May 21st, 2013

    Subscribers to our morning email get the best of LabourList – including the Media and blog round up – every weekday morning. If you were a subscriber you would have already received this in your inbox. You can sign up here. Labour proposes teachers spend time in industry “All teachers involved in vocational education would have to spend a period of each year in industry, under Labour plans to integrate further education with emerging skills gaps identified by businesses. The strategy – announced on [...]

    Read more →
  • Comment Featured Is party politics dying out?

    Is party politics dying out?

    By Mark Ferguson

    This week has brought the role of party members and activists back to the front pages. That’s rather unusual to be honest – and rightly so, as party members (swivel eyed and otherwise) make up only 1% of the British population. Being a party member is already a niche interest. You are somewhat odd if you’re a party member – sorry to break that to you, but of course I’m odd too (and quite possibly odder than you). What swivel-eyed [...]

    Read more →