National Policy Forum Exeter: July 2000
Name: Margaret Payne
The National Policy Forum in Exeter was the best so far. The mood was good and everyone I spoke to said they had contributed. A lot of work had been put in and a lot of hard work was done over that weekend. Changes had been made.
Some things, however, never change. The ethnic community representation consisted of myself and three or four other ‘usual suspects’ out of 175 delegates. A sad reflection of today’s Labour Party. We are frustrated.
The CLP section seemed to be taken less seriously. Some unions tied up ministers using time slots allocated to CLP delegates. Some rightly felt they had not been entirely involved in discussions on key issues. We agreed delegates would not speak to their amendments when put to the vote. However, some ministers did exactly that. Delegates had no chance to respond and were frustrated.
The NPF reflected the problem of the whole process. The CLP membership as a whole lag far behind the Government and unions in obtaining information about what is going on and what can be achieved. CLPs are losing out and some feel frustrated.
Shortly after Exeter I went to a constituency to discuss the process. I had exactly the same discussion there as I’d had at the very first constituency meeting I attended some years earlier. Members did not know what was going on and did not feel anyone was interested. Some wanted to take part. The shame was they had lost several years of involvement and I left frustrated.
NPF reps like myself give up free time explaining that this is a good process and one that should give everyone the chance to take part. The message is not getting through. The CLP reps on the policy commissions have borne the brunt of the unnecessary cynicism and criticism this causes. We are few, we are not full-time politicians, and we lack resources. The communication lines are lacking or completely broken, but we refuse to be frustrated.
National Policy Forum Exeter: July 2000
Name: Simon murphy MEP
The National Policy Forum came of age in Exeter. Its teething troubles are well and truly over. It has teeth and it can bite. Just ask the hosts of Secretaries of State and senior ministers who spent hours and hours locked in detailed debate and discussion with delegates. At times we could almost have been in a court of law, with robust and direct questioning the order of the day.
Important policies and key amendments were examined at length – the Tobin Tax, direct funding of schools by the DfEE, elections for the House of Lords, Parliamentary scrutiny of a common European defence, and foreign and security policy, to name but a few. Frequently, a minister would find him or herself having to defend Government policy under pressure from a specific CLP or trade union amendment.
The difference with more traditional Labour Party meetings could not have been more stark. The culture of ‘matters arising from the minutes of last month’s executive committee meeting’ was a distant thought. Labour Party people are interested in politics. We all joined the Labour Party to make a difference – to effect change for the better.
The policy forum process gives us all – individuals, branches and CLPs, affiliates and trade unionists, plus elected representatives – a visible and meaningful stake in that change.
Government ministers are very busy people. It was understandable that many were unable to be present. However, those ministers who spent the whole weekend in Exeter had the greatest influence on the process. By contrast, it was noticeable that those who were only briefly in Exeter, especially just on the Sunday, were less effective.
What is important now is that we move forward with the policy forum approach. Where changes to policy are made, their origins must be acknowledged and credited.
Those who participate in policy forums – from the smallest, right through to the Durhams and Exeters of this world – must be able to see where they have made a difference to party policy.
National Policy Forum Exeter: July 2000
Name: Meg Russell
I hope the National Policy Forum meeting in Exeter was a milestone on the road towards the new, inclusive policy-making process which was promised by Partnership in Power.
If all party members, not just the activists, can engage in debate on Labour’s policies and help shape Government policy, this has the potential to be very powerful. If the leadership listens to the members who, in turn, are in touch with their communities, this should help to ground the Government and keep it in-tune with the electorate’s views. Not only can this help keep Labour in power, it is also good, democratic politics.
The process is still at a teething stage and there have been serious problems with trust. Members are suspicious that the changes are aimed at silencing their views. Ministers, meanwhile, fear that consultations with members may result in unrealistic demands being made, and Conferences dominated by adversarial rows. If the process is to succeed, it is essential that both groups come to trust it more.
There were good signs in Exeter. A large number of amendments were accepted, some after negotiation and modification, and the documents going to Conference will be more radical than last year. There will also be ‘alternative’ positions debated and voted upon for the first time. Such debates should be good-natured and open: a vital part of the work of a healthy, democratic party.
In this way, trust may begin to grow. But there is still more that needs to be done. Members must believe that their views are being reflected in the documents that go to the NPF. I have attended many local meetings where a wealth of views and experience have been put forward, and these must not be lost. I believe that when policy commissions draft documents, they should take responsibility for reflecting the plurality of views, rather than relying solely on NPF members to propose ‘alternative’ positions. Conference debates should remain the way to resolve the big policy questions, when there is no consensus. These changes would both require more trust from the top.
Locally, however, some things must also change. Policy forums must reflect the real views of the members by being big and inclusive, and parties must be connected to the community and responsive to their views. A new culture will take a long time to build. But a bit more trust would be a good start.
National Policy Forum Exeter: July 2000
Name: Hazel Blears MP
Seventy two hours in Exeter – a chance to lay the foundations for the next Labour manifesto or simply a lost weekend?
The reality was somewhere between the two. I defy any human being to concentrate on six areas of policy development with 658 amendments without occasionally coming up for air. Having been a member of the National Policy Forum from the very beginning, way before I became an MP, it’s been fascinating to be part of the creation of an entirely new way of making policy in the Labour Party.
Like any new idea, parts of it work better than others. Well-organised and structured local policy forums, with proper feedback mechanisms, do produce excellent ideas and allow more party members to be involved in making policy.
There is, however, still a very real problem in ensuring that the voice of members is heard throughout the process and that they can see both transparently and clearly how their ideas have made a difference. This is slowly improving but we need to put more resources into the local and regional organisation to fully integrate the policy forum process into our party structures.
The emergence of minority positions this year was hugely encouraging – not opposition for its own sake, as in the past, but genuine differences of view, discussed openly, voted upon without arm twisting, and now giving the party a chance to debate important issues of principle and practice at Conference.
At last! The NPF seems to be working in the way that many at first envisaged – but there’s still a long way to go. We need to look critically at the role of the policy commissions. How can they take a longer-term view? Can they break free of the temptation simply to list current achievements?
It’s a tall order, but we must ensure that in the next round of policy-making the commissions are properly resourced and organised to encourage the kind of innovation which will really make us a 21st Century party.
Many members have been genuinely concerned that the new policy forum process would dilute their voice and lead to a top-down kind of party. From the very beginning, I have been convinced that if the process is properly used by members, it can lead to far more challenging and radical ideas coming through at every level.
It is up to us all to make sure that the NPF is the authentic voice of members but I know one thing: 72 hours of constructive discussion in Exeter beats half an hour’s argument and condemnation in Blackpool or Brighton any day.
National Policy Forum Exeter: July 2000
Name: Ann black
The National Policy Forum’s success will be judged by the 40,000 members who participated in local discussions and, ultimately, by millions of undecided voters.
Many amendments reflecting mainstream concerns have been incorporated. As an illustration of the new process, the education and employment document initially stated that comprehensive education ‘has not delivered what its advocates hoped for, never mind what we require for the 21st Century.’
After negotiation, ministers accepted instead that comprehensive education ‘has delivered much that its advocates hoped for, nevertheless further improvements need to take place in order to achieve what we require for the 21st Century. There should be no return to the 11-plus, which divides children into successes and failures at this early age. . . We should address concerns about the technical details of the ballots [on retaining grammar schools].’
Under the old system, the original would undoubtedly have been carried as an NEC paper, with alternative composites, including calls for immediate abolition of grammar schools, defeated or ignored. While some may still be dissatisfied, the outcome is, arguably, an improvement.
However, little is left for Conference debate, beyond votes at sixteen and the House of Lords. And we were not allowed to discuss pensions, despite vigorous demands. The rolling programme means not revisiting past decisions, and last year only sixteen members backed the earnings link.
Finally, the NPF cannot succeed in isolation. Feedback from local parties disappears into policy commissions. Forum proceedings are hidden. Constituencies are losing interest in Conference, where delegates elect their representatives. This year, for 36 places, thirteen candidates are unopposed and vacancies remain. If we deliver the goods, no-one will complain, but there are few checks and balances if we get it wrong. Better connections and a wider sense of ownership are urgently needed.
National Policy Forum Exeter: July 2000
Name: Matthew Cain
The main unsung strength of the National Policy Forum is the way that it effectively utilises all of our affiliate organisations. Never before have all our disparate groups been brought together in an inclusive structure which involves people on an equal footing. That is the theory.
Despite the ‘new and modern’ way of making policy (it is only vibrant during the evening festivities), the distinctive feature of the weekend at Exeter was the apparent wheeling and dealing done behind closed doors – to the exclusion of everyone bar ministers, advisers, and trade union bosses.
This way of operating raises questions about the way that trade unions do business, their relationship with the Government and, even more fundamentally, their role within the party. However, above all, Partnership in Power gives an opportunity for a comprehensive examination of trade unions’ internal operation and their relationship with Labour.
There are three main issues that need to be tackled. The first is the role of trade unions in a Labour government. The second is the relationship between trade union policy and their members. The third is the role and position of trade union members within the Labour Party.
Trade unions’ role in policy-making goes to the very heart of the ‘fairness not favours’ debate. However, if they are to play a constructive, active role, representing a part of the electorate largely ignored by Tories and Liberals, they need to do so effectively and democratically. Only by playing an inclusive and democratic role, involving their grassroots members, can they do so effectively. If this goal is realised, they would be a vital player – and it would be the final nail in the ‘break the link’ coffin.
New ways have to be found of engaging trade union members who pay the political levy in the party. A definite role has to be identified, not just nationally but locally, in every CLP and local community. This may need to trigger a debate on the position of trade unions within society. Are they simply a work-based safety net, with members joining or leaving as work changes? Or can they be a key part of every community, marrying the extra services that they offer alongside job security?
These are the fundamental issues that trade unionists, working with Labour, need to address. The possibilities are endless and the conclusions could be exciting and dynamic. The experience of Exeter shows that they need to happen quickly.
National Policy Forum Exeter: July 2000
Name: Jenny Holland
As an old hand on the National Policy Forum – having served on it, with a year’s break, since January 1996 – I have witnessed at first hand the gradual, and sometimes painful, evolution of the new policy-making process at whose heart it sits.
And, now that nine policy documents have almost completed their passage through that process, what do I see as its strengths and weaknesses? Put simply, I think it has yet to fulfil its potential. I firmly believe it has the capacity to be more inclusive and produce more thoughtfully debated policy than the resolutions-based system of old. But, in talking to party members at local forums and CLP meetings across Eastern region, I have been concerned to discover that they have fundamental misgivings.
Many members are delighted to give up a day to contribute to regional policy forums – but the problem is that they have little, if any, idea about what happens to that contribution once they have made it. Too often, they start to feel it has disappeared into the ether. Our regional office does a fantastic job arranging forums – eight this spring – but they simply don’t have the resources to send a report back from each forum to participating members. Likewise, together with my fellow CLP representatives, I produce a newsletter after each NPF meeting but, of necessity, these are broad-brush affairs.
Essentially, the problem is not so much the process, as a lack of ‘ownership’ of the process. We all know that most CLP resolutions used to sink without trace in the old compositing rituals, but at least members could track their resolution from party meeting to Conference agenda. Many of them now feel bereft at this loss of what they saw as a direct avenue into the policy-making process.
The way forward is for the party to commit itself to providing an open and transparent system of feedback – from policy commissions to local parties, and from regional offices to forum participants. Without this, members will start voting with their feet – and the opportunity to create a dynamic and inclusive policy-making system will have been squandered.
National Policy Forum Exeter: July 2000
Name: Laura shepherd-Robinson
Like most members, I did harbour some suspicion as to how exactly the views of forums would actually translate into policy.
Perhaps the best feature of the new process that Exeter highlighted was the degree of flexibility. Under the old system, if a motion was broadly supported by ministers but contained a small amount of undesirable text, Conference either had to accept or reject the motion in its entirety. However, in Exeter proposers of amendments had the opportunity to debate, and reach compromises, with ministers. This was aided by the commitment given by ministers to the process.
However, as a constituency representative, I was unimpressed with the differences in the way in which the different categories of delegate involved themselves in the process. A considerable number of trade union delegates chose not to participate in the general debate. Instead, meetings between ministers and unions took place at a very late stage and behind closed doors. This had the effects of leaving constituency delegates in the dark at a crucial stage of the process as to which amendments were to be withdrawn, generating suspicion as to what deals had been done across issues in order to reach agreement. The unions have an extremely valuable role to play in the process and those trade unionists that did take part in the group discussions made an excellent contribution. However, it is vital that the process does not appear to legitimise the ‘smoke-filled room’ that was one of the worst aspects of the old system.
Whilst improvements are clearly needed in the new process, it is an innovative and inclusive procedure that is a vast improvement on the days of compositing.