Name: Laura Shepherd-Robinson
The Labour Party’s decision to adopt the policy forum process was a brave and visionary step. It was envisaged as a move away from the old process of motions, composites, back-room deals and false dichotomies that often – as the party publicly tore into itself on national television – seemed to offer more to the Conservatives than it did to Labour Party members. Instead, the policy forum mechanism was conceived as an inclusive and on-going process that involved all members.
It was inevitable that any change so dramatic would be the subject of criticism from conservatives within the party who perpetually resist change. However, several years on, the process still does not appear to have engaged members in the manner its creators envisaged. I was a South West constituency representative on the NPF for two years. It was rare that I met a member who had a bad word to say about their personal experience of a local policy forum. It was even rarer that I met a member who wished for a return to the days of motions and composites. However, whilst members by and large accepted the need for change, they did not view the new process with much enthusiasm. The argument may have been won in members’ heads; it does not appear to have been won in their hearts and minds.
The main problem is a widespread suspicion that the process is simply a means by which the leadership can rubber-stamp decisions it has already taken. I do not believe this to be the case – I felt most government ministers were only too happy to listen, to engage and to compromise on policies the membership care passionately about. Indeed, one of the process’ greatest assets, its lack of ‘big win’ situations for one side or the other, means it is very difficult to demonstrate this to members.
However, a more relaxed and widespread use of minority positions that can be debated and voted on at party conference would give the process far more credibility with members. Nobody wants to see a return to the days when factionalism and in-fighting were gleefully splashed across the pages of the rightwing press. However, equally, there has to be a recognition that the government is not going to fall if a minority position is publicly debated, and perhaps even won.
Responsibility does not, however, lie at the door of the leadership alone. We are all, at every level of the party, responsible for the process’ failure to grip members’ imaginations: the GC secretary who fails to hold local policy forums in his constituency; the NPF representatives who see their job as either to undermine the process or to slavishly uphold the leadership’s position; the trade union leader who doesn’t engage in the process for months, then turns up at the last minute with an enormous list of amendments. Following the election, a climate of change appears to be in the air – a new General Secretary has been appointed, ministers seem more open to new ideas and opinions, and Charles Clarke has been appointed Labour Party Chair. An opportunity is there to make the policy forum process the dynamic, interactive and involving process its creators envisaged.
Name: Willie Sullivan
All of us who are supportive of deliberative, inclusive and effective policy making will realize that the resolution-based policy making that we used prior to Partnership in Power was an unlikely route to that destination. Partnership in Power is a much more plausible way of getting there.
It is, first and foremost, a process – a process that should be in a state of constant evolution, thus taking account of the shifting environment within which we operate. To some extent that is what it has been doing. Many parts of the organization are learning from ‘doing it’ and it is true that the process has changed because of those lessons. Experience has proved to be more useful than untested opinion.
There is no doubt that the second cycle of policy development that culminated at conference last year was on the whole better than the 1997-99 cycle. A good example of that development was the difference between the National Policy Forum meeting at Durham in 1998 and the 2000 meeting at Exeter. Huge improvements where brought about in the way in which amendments were dealt.
It is my view that Partnership in Power is the most significant modernisation we have made to the party machine, perhaps ever. It is significant because it can be the mechanism by which the party can constantly develop and remain relevant. Not only in policy terms, but also in the way that we grow as an organisation.
If we are to remain a modern political party we need political activists who can organise and manage at branch and constituency level. Political activists don’t join the Labour Party because they want cheap insurance or other service perks of membership. It is more likely that they expect to enter a significant dialogue within the party on issues, or because they personally hope to gain public office one day, or usually both.
Because it is impossible for us all to hold office, Partnership in Power has to engage and excite Labour Party members. This is currently what it is not doing. How many members out there know how to get an amendment put to National Policy Forum?
How many feel they can feed in an idea at a local policy forum and support its development and debate through the process? This lack of engagement and credibility at grassroots level is a most pressing problem. For an organisation that thought ‘massive but passive’ was a good strap line for our party, the solution may be a difficult one.
A party of politically interested activists may seem a bit scary. However that’s the deal. Give us politics and we’ll give you a political party. There are changes in the machine and I am optimistic. I think now there is a real commitment to properly resourcing and supporting the process at a local level through regional organisations. Only when the grassroots is stimulated and supported enough to reach out and make strong connections with the National Policy Forum will Partnership in Power work properly.
Name: Daniel Zeichner
In the heady months leading up to the 1997 election, National Policy Forum members thought long and hard about how things might be when Labour returned to power. Many remembered, and some were involved in, the Labour governments of the 1970s, when government and NEC seemed locked in constant combat. Not a model for electoral success, it was generally agreed, nor, more importantly, for implementing Labour’s programme successfully. Then General Secretary Tom Sawyer argued powerfully for a new ‘triangle’ linking Labour government, Labour Party and Labour voters – the latter being the key. An optimistic, and difficult, vision to achieve, but one still worth working for. Some of us feared the proposed system looked like a bureaucratic labyrinth, but in the spirit of the times we were prepared to try our best to make it work.
Four years on, in the early stages of the new Parliament, it’s a good time to take stock. Listening to delegates at party conference in Brighton this autumn describing their experiences, it is hard not to conclude that there is a lot to do before members have confidence in the process. The complaints are familiar and consistent: poor feedback, a sense that conference debates have become sterile and, most importantly, a resentment that decisions are made regardless of the views of party members. Margaret Prosser, replying to the debate for the NEC, noted the rising volume of ‘contemporary resolutions’ and suggested that constituencies and affiliates might be trying to go back to the old system through the back door – a sure sign of dissatisfaction.
Is it all bad news? There are some positives. As a political education exercise, Partnership in Power has been a significant step forward. Party members have been earnestly engaged in serious discussion, starting from policy papers that at least set out the basics, and sometimes ask reasonably open questions. Similarly, at evening ward and branch meetings, the randomness of resolutions has, on occasion, been replaced by structured discussion. In many cases, good facilitators encourage and support contributions from people previously excluded. Too often, however, unsuitable facilitators (sometimes parliamentarians, sadly) dominate, and many people feel that although they may have enjoyed an interesting day, they can’t see what it achieved.
The feedback loop can be resolved, partly by better resourcing, but primarily by insisting that it happens. It is always difficult with volunteers, but it can be done. The much more difficult challenge is to show that the views of the party make a difference. Here the ball is in the government’s court. For them, Partnership in Power may have worked – if the aim was to avoid damaging confrontations. But it can’t go on like this – the reservoirs of trust and goodwill are running low. Making policy when you are in government is a whole lot more difficult than when in opposition, and we are still learning how to do it. The party needs to understand the constraints under which ministers operate, but, in return, the government needs to respect and understand the quite reasonable frustrations of party members. We will not agree on everything: the question is whether Partnership in Power can evolve to allow a mature dialogue. Maybe it is still too soon to tell, but the stakes are high. When party and government fall out, the next thing to learn is how to make policy in opposition.