While international events rightly dominate the headlines and normal domestic politics appears to have been suspended, the business of government quietly continues.
Since 11 September, the government has pressed ahead with a number of big announcements: details of the second stage of House of Lords reform; an apparent softening of its stance on cannabis; introducing the right of shareholders to vote on company directors’ pay; the scrapping of asylum vouchers; a review of the student funding system; and the decision to create a not-for-profit company to replace Railtrack.
Many Labour Party members will find much to welcome in these decisions. Two outstanding sores of the Tories’ time in power – Railtrack’s appalling stewardship of Britain’s railways and the scandal of ‘fat cat’ pay awards – are now being tackled. Moreover, certain actions taken by the government during the first term – the introduction of asylum vouchers and tuition fees and the scrapping of student maintenance grants – which caused so much unease in the party, are also now being addressed.
Most Labour Party members accept that they are never going to agree with every decision taken by either the government or the party leadership. All political activity – from the act of voting to governing itself – necessarily involves compromise and accepting decisions with which one does not agree.
Nonetheless, party members will be keen that if the government is re-elected at the next election it should not have to spend the first months of its third term reversing the errors of its second. There is a way both to reduce the likelihood of this happening and to ensure that members who do not agree with every aspect of government policy nonetheless continue to feel included. This is to strengthen the Partnership in Power process; to ensure that party policy is subjected to the rigour of open debate and the possibility of amendment.
The government needs to view party members not simply as salesmen for its achievements, but as essential partners in policy making. Party members, after all, have much to contribute: not only their own opinions, but also a sense of what the communities within which they live and work want and expect from a Labour government.
The principles behind Partnership in Power remain compelling, the case for a return to the party’s old policy-making structures weak. Nonetheless, reasonable criticisms of the first cycle have been raised: Does the process exist simply to legitimise decisions already taken by the government? Are too few issues coming to the floor of party conference because of fears that the media will turn honest debate into stories of splits and division? Are the feedback mechanisms which exist in the party adequate?
On all these fronts, there are grounds for optimism. Party chairman Charles Clarke makes clear in this issue of Progress that members will not accept a process which they feel ignores their views. He calls for a more ‘open and discursive’ style in future and acknowledges problems with feedback mechanisms in the past. If the party chairman delivers on his vision, it will not simply be party members who will benefit – so will the government itself.