Refounding Labour – a matter of trust

By Daniel Zeichner

Last year, I posed the question: can the National Policy Forum be made to work? Like many others in the party, I’ve spent many hours in recent weeks at meetings devoted to the Refounding Labour discussion, and that question has frequently returned to my mind. Because what I’ve heard consistently from members is that this issue isn’t about structures, or changing a few rules here and there, it is a matter of trust, and more particularly of trust betrayed.

Most party members old enough to remember the days of composites and conference resolutions understand the problems that came with them, and also understand how easy it is for a party to look divided to the public. But for many, the disappointments of the 1997-2010 loom larger than the successes, and there is a real anger at the sense of lost opportunity. We had two landslide election victories – did we do enough with it? And if not, why was it? Too many feel let down by leading figures in the party who are still popping up in unhelpful ways, and, inevitably, the structures created at that time within the party are tarnished. For many party members, the National Policy Forum is not only poorly understood, it is forever associated with that period, and so with that betrayal of trust.

So, can the National Policy Forum be made to work? Possibly not: and it is a much bigger task now than when it was introduced in the early 1990s, and fully developed after 1997. The first time around, after too many years in opposition, many Labour members were prepared to give a different system a try. The essential features were welcome: a more inclusive, gender-balanced approach; stressing areas of agreement rather than disagreement; a rolling programme allowing policy to be developed more rationally; policy commissions of representatives rather than friends of the inner-circle. The enthusiasm of the early years, with hundreds attending regional forums with trained facilitators, soon evaporated. Despite attempts by some NPF members to ensure that genuine debates emerged from the process, the controlling instincts of party managers prevailed. Very quickly, people began asking what came of the earnest and intense discussions that were being held. What effect did it have, was anyone listening? After 2001, the rolling programme disappeared, numbers attending events fell, and post 2005, the process fell away still further. At Conference, the rise of the ‘contemporary’ motion showed the frustration that was out there.

In 2011, it is hard to ask people to believe in a process which has fallen so far from the initial heady ideals. Once trust is broken, we know that it is much harder to re-establish. Listening to the discussions in recent weeks, however, I haven’t heard many structural alternatives being promoted. The basic principles remain sound, but people want the system to work properly, to ensure that debate and difference isn’t suppressed, but is managed in a mature and comradely way. My suggestions for improvement aren’t new, but as a long-standing member of the NPF and of Policy Commissions I think there are changes that could help. Without highlighting division for the sake of it, I think Policy Commissions could frame choices for Conference to discuss. On Higher Education funding, for example, there are choices: different types of graduate tax; different mixes of potential funding from taxes; employers and individuals. The next Labour government will have to make that choice – far better, as Nick Clegg might now ruefully admit, to come to a properly agreed position that everyone can stick to. We should also recognise that making policy when the party is in government is very different from when in opposition and our processes should reflect that. In opposition we should start by re-asserting some basic values and principles before moving on to more detailed prescriptions. We should return to the rolling programme, and resist the temptation to discuss everything every year, which too often means some issues are rarely touched.

Refounding Labour is about more than the policy forum. For me, two very different messages have emerged from the discussions. Members new to the party find the structures baffling and unhelpful. Long-established members often cherish them. There is a real problem here, for the party in many places has only survived because of the dedication and loyalty of those people. Telling them that things must change mirrors the thinking of the 1997-2010 leadership – too often they could see the logical solution to a problem but failed to understand the human context. Post offices are the past? Shut them! In simple financial terms, maybe, but the social relationships around them and the wider sense of what people want in their lives makes such decisions much more complicated. It is the same with the party, and we should be permissive not prescriptive. Of course we should encourage and support new ideas and new ways of doing things, but sometimes alongside the old ways, and at a pace that people are comfortable with. We should also recognise that the old geographical basis for organising has changed – many people no longer work in the constituency where they live, and we should be more flexible. One of the most supportive trade unionists in my area organises his workplace in the city but lives in an adjoining constituency – and so a potentially valuable link is lost. A more radical variation suggested at one meeting is that you should be able to choose which constituency you belong to. Of course there need to be safeguards to avoid manipulation, but in a world of real-time instant communication, these are thoughts worth considering.

Ultimately, whatever changes we make to our structures, the basic issue remains one of trust. That can’t be codified, and every party leader faces the same dilemmas – pressure from the media; the gap between the views of party activists and potential voters; frustration at feeling misrepresented. But that is the nature of politics. Refounding Labour is part of that process, the very act of being involved in the discussion is part of it. Success will depend on rebuilding that delicate balance between leaders and party members. The experience of the last twenty years has left the current leadership generation with a huge challenge. Meeting it will take goodwill from everyone involved, and no-one should underestimate the scale of the task.

Daniel Zeichner is a member of NPF for Eastern England. June 2011