Track every submission

Happy new year, happy new partnership into power review! You may have heard about, you may not. Or most likely, it may have not been your top concern this Christmas. But until the end of January you have an opportunity to express your views in the latest consultation on how our party makes policy. It’s natural to be cynical about such consultations given past exercises. But I’m a cynical optimist. And I believe there’s reason to be hopeful.

This summer, I set out on here why Refounding Labour should bring transparency and accountability to our policy making process. I’ve been campaigning for more democracy and openness throughout my time on the NPF, proud to have helped bring about one-member-one-vote to NPF elections. So I was delighted to hear speakers from the platform supporting openness and proper feedback in policy making. At last! We need to seize this opportunity to flesh out actual principles and actions that will deliver the a process we could have trust in.

It’s also good to remember that whilst our party’s processes are far from perfect, our current structures are far more democratic and healthy in real terms than any other UK political party. And before you tell me of CPGB’s amazing structure, the measure of success I value in a democratic institution is not just its theoretical glory, but how much and how deeply it engages people. It is thanks to fantastic activists, councillors, MPs and our union and socialist society affiliates that we connect far more people in shaping policies that we enact in government. But it could be so much more. So with that in mind, put your cynicism on ice this winter, and think about how we can build it to meet our democratic demands.

The first step towards making our policy making process open and accountable is transparancy. An acknowledgement letter is not enough. Whether submitted on the website, via email or by post, every submission must automatically generate a unique identifier. This isn’t revolutionary technology. This is issue tracking at its finest. Most customer support services do this. What is exciting is how it will change the dynamics of the NPF.

So, you’ve got that submission sorted. You’ve sent it in. Now, your CLP discusses and endorses it. And it records support for it. You tell your friend in your neighbouring CLP about it, and they decide to support it too. Momentum builds.

Now, the policy commission that oversees the subject of your submission meets. Instead of just a printed out spreadsheet with no context or weighting, the members have had ample time to monitor incoming submissions, and have noted that your idea has got several CLPs endorsing it. The (shadow) ministerial advisor has formulated a response. The commission agrees to adopt the suggestion. Or maybe it thinks it’s barmy and rejects it. Either way, the submitter and all who got involved will get clear feedback. And if their idea was rejected, they will get to know who made the decision and why.

So what might be the effect of all this transparency and methodology on our policy making? Well, firstly, we’ve clamped down on of one of the worst ways for dismissing ideas – getting lost in a pile, being missed off the minutes, or running out of time at a meeting. It doesn’t matter if it’s cockup or conspiracy, no more. So suddenly, the actions of the commission, advisors, ministers get to be scrutinised. Representatives will be accountable for their actions. Those who entered a submission will know who dealt with it.

What this results in is a shift of balance from advisors and the bubble of Westminster to members across the country. The agendas of commission meetings will be rightly shaped primarily by the views of members. Policy documents would be based on grassroots input, not top-down drafts.

I also think we should be more open to input from our supporters and the wider public in our policy making, but with the key proviso that it’s clear where something is coming from. So if I come across 28 member submissions backing a banking tax and 1 from an F. Goodwin opposing it, I can weigh the two up properly. At present, there is often little demarcation between different submissions, and even less time to sift through them. We’d be foolish to dismiss a wider input to our policy making process – but it must not be used to drown out the voice of party members.

Now, there’s things to iron out, and I’ve intentionally avoided the minutiia of the process, whether X amount of support should trigger Y etc etc. I am very enthusiastic and supportive of the proposals that Unions Together submitted to Refounding Labour that do address this, and I would be delighted if they were adopted. Whilst the details are important, it is crucial the we ensure the fundamentals outlined form the basis of the reforms. A transparent, accountable, democratic policy making process. The views of members the driving force, not an afterthought. The naysayers too often use the more eccentric views that we’ve all come across as reason to stifle. But they’re wrong. It is a dangerous overreaction to do so. You open yourself to ivory tower syndrome – with the Westminster bubble failing to listen to our eyes and ears on the ground.

By electing good representatives, having a healthy dialogue with shadow ministers and putting some decent procedures, we can create a policy making system that will rebuild trust with members and generate ideas to help deliver our next Labour government.

Alon Or-bach is a member of the NPF