Rebuilding trust and integrity in policy making

By Alon Or-bach

The Refounding Labour consultation closed for submissions yesterday. For me, the process brought back memories of the first branch meeting I attended 11 years ago this month. On the agenda, the 21st Century Party consultation. I still remember the passionate debate about whether the electoral college should be 30/70, 40/60 or 50/50 split between members and affiliates. Not that fondly mind you. The consultation became one of too many failed exercises to transform our party. Ordinary members suspecting it as an attempt to disempower local parties, which too often was the case, building up distrust and defensiveness against any centrally-led reforms. The result? Stalemate. Those that want to modernise and build up the party get stuck between those that subvert reform to disenfranchise members and those that always oppose change. But not this time. We can’t afford to let this chance pass by.

The good thing is it looks promising to be different from all I’ve seen. Going round events and meetings across London, I’ve had the opportunity to listen and discuss ideas of how to rebuild our party, and I believe the leadership will take many of them on board.

Over the past five years, I’ve had the privilege of representing London members on the National Policy Forum. Going round reporting back, too often the contributions are not about policy, but why the mechanics of the NPF are so opaque, and how little trust it enjoys. A lot of concerns raised with me over the past few years have been reaffirmed. This has spurred me to flesh out a proposal outlining the framework for how we should conduct policy making as a democratic socialist party.

Transparency, Accountability & Democracy

What my experience has taught me is the urgent need for openness in how we make policy. On the surface, it my sound a bit technocratic (forgive me but I am a software engineer). However, this goes to the heart of our belief in redistributing power. It’s about the mechanisms that determine who gets to have a say, and whether it counts.

Firstly and foremost, transparency is key. Whilst murkiness makes life easier for compromise, it needlessly taints what could otherwise be a decent process. From the first submission a member or local group makes, through to a manifesto hitting the presses, our process needs to err on the side of openness. There are two many steps along the way where good ideas can be discarded, and whilst this may be an expediate trick for those that want a controversial policy to disappear, it undermines legitimacy and destroys confidence in the NPF.

Proposal:
Every policy submission should be tracked. With a click or two the individual or body that submitted it can find out exactly where it’s gone, whether it was adopted, rejected, or awaiting consideration.

Next comes accountability. Who decided that our idea was to be rejected? Or was it not even considered as there was not enough time at the commission’s meeting that day? Or was it actually accepted and yet the only acknowledgement received is your name printed in the report to annual conference?
This isn’t good enough. Not only are individuals and groups unable to trace their submissions, but the same applies to representatives. Unless your NPF rep happens to be on the policy commission dealing with the subject of your contribution, they will never get to see it.

Proposal:
We record which commission, shadow minister/minister or advisor made a decision. Representatives are to at last have a full view of submissions made by those they were elected to represent.

Now, democracy isn’t an easy topic, with countless different viewpoints on electoral colleges, block votes, and so forth. In the context of policy making, the real crunch comes down to the balance of power between the party membership, trade unions, government/shadow cabinet and the Parliamentary Labour Party. As fitting as it may be, I’m not going to try and determine the magic electoral collage formula, but look at the real-life situations where the balance is wrong.

It is inevitable that those that wield more power are likely to get more of a say, but as a democratic socialist party, we should seek to minimise that internally as much as we oppose it across society. One example is where opportunities are available to MPs but not others. The voice of the PLP is clearly one the leadership should listen to, but it shouldn’t drown out others. And if the PLP get to voice their opinion on an issue, so should the membership. We must also avoid the dangers of effectively bypassing the membership in the efforts led by the shadow cabinet. Finally, whilst direct engagement between unions and the party leadership should always be welcomed, again, it should not be at the expense of members. This was most stark in the ‘Warwick-style’ policy forums, where discussions were held between ministers and unions, excluding representatives of ordinary members.

Proposals:
The party – whether at the NPF or conference – can have a say on a policy, including a vote.
Any policy making body should be open about it’s existence and clearly accountable to the wider party.
Engagement with unions should be combined with that of ordinary members

These thoughts and proposals are not meant to fix everything, but core, fundamental changes in our approach. The opportunities a trusted policy making system have are immense. We could be the party that once again opens up policy outside of the Westminster bubble to ordinary people across the country. Our councillors, activists and members the eyes and ears of a democratic movement that listens and represents. Let’s make sure that Refounding Labour does just that, and truly opens up our party’s policy making.