From that debate in 1988, prompted by a model resolution circulated by the Labour Coordinating Committee, came a review of policy-making which created the National Policy Forum (NPF), and a policymaking structure which, for all its imperfections, gave party activists a real say for the first time ever. I don’t know whether Ed Miliband, who was a teenager in 1988, knew that Peter Hain was the Putney delegate who spoke to the resolution when he appointed him as chair of the NPF this week. Perhaps even Hain himself has forgotten. It does seem like a long time ago.

I am always infuriated when people say the NPF has taken power away from members. There was never a golden age of members’ democracy in the Labour party. It was all founded on a pernicious myth. At my first Labour party conference in 1990 in Blackpool, the trade unions and other affiliates held 90 per cent of the votes. The constituency Labour parties (CLPs) held 10 per cent between them. Even if every CLP in the country voted together, their votes would only amount to one in ten. Consider all the passion of CLP debates, the intense discussion and organisation to pass or defeat GC resolutions on nuclear disarmament, Europe, nationalisation or trade union rights. Imagine the endless GC debates about apartheid, the miners’ strike, privatisation of the utilities or the Falklands. And then imagine all that effort ending up at a conference where the resolutions were hacked to pieces in a compositing meeting, then decided on conference floor by the unions. Composition was a process where the ‘owners’ of resolutions and amendments would meet on the eve of conference and take words and phrases from each other’s statements to create new forms of words. They would be cut up with scissors and reassembled with glue. It gave rise to legends such as the man kneeling on the floor of the compositing meeting. When asked what he was doing, he replied ‘I’m trying to save the National Health Service.’ Not the actual NHS, but the words, which had fallen behind the radiator.

The first NPF took place in 1993 at the Ark in Hammersmith. It was a curious affair. The shadow cabinet where there in force. My job was to ‘mind’ various shadow cabinet ministers including Margaret Beckett (the deputy leader) and Tony Blair, then making a name for himself as shadow home secretary. The news broke on the Saturday that a prisoner had died in the back of a privatised prison van, and Blair was quick off the mark to denounce the ‘farce turned to tragedy’ of the Tory policy. The NPF has met ever since, notably at the legendary Warwick meeting before the 2005 election, and its disappointing sequel in 2007. Despite laudable efforts such as the ‘Big Conversation’, the party has struggled to find a way to engage members and supporters in policymaking, and has been the poorer for it. His enemies seek to blame Ed Miliband for the 2010 manifesto, but he had to work with the material he was presented from an NPF process which had been neutered by Downing Street. Ministers at the NPF in Warwick, and the Number 10 political office, were given a simple order: no pasaran. Any new suggestion, especially if it had a price tag, was rebutted by adamantine ministers.

Now, back in opposition we can do what parties in opposition should do, and that’s take a long hard look at ourselves. There are two reviews about to be launched. The first is a review of the policymaking process itself. We should remind ourselves how far we’ve come to democratise our party. When Labour last left office in 1979, the leader was elected by MPs only; parliamentary candidates were selected by general committees, not ordinary members; the constituency section of the NEC (seven in total) were elected by mandated delegates at conference; policy was determined by the NEC and its labyrinthine sub-committees, not by the membership; and as I’ve said, constituency delegates only had 10 per cent of the conference votes between them. We’ve done a great deal to empower party members in the choosing of our leaders, our candidates, our reps on the NEC and NPF, and our voice at conference. If you seek a golden age for members’ democracy in the party, this is as good as it has ever been. It could and should be so much better. The NPF remains an alien structure to most of the party membership, and apart from one or two assiduous NPF reps, members do not know who represents them at it. The review must look at the ways in which the NPF seeks views and gathers ideas. There is a range of tools which can be used in modern policymaking, from citizens’ juries and panels, to online consultation and polling, none of which the NPF does currently. CLPs without Labour MPs or councillors, such as my own, must have ways to get involved too.

The second review is being led by Liam Byrne, the new shadow Cabinet Office minister. The exact nature of this review of party policy is to be worked out, but the premise is clear enough: by 2015 Britain will look different from 2010. The size of the state will be smaller. Public services will have been squeezed. Levels of unemployment, deprivation and social disorder will have increased. So what should Labour’s policy response be? Unlike the policy review in 1988-90, this one is open-ended. Kinnock’s review had a specific set of outcomes in mind, notably ditching unilateralism, nationalisation and the closed shop, which had been vote-losers in 1983 and 1987. This time, the policy review can be a real chance to assess the effectiveness of policy, look at successful examples from around the world, listen to campaigners and thinktanks, and hear the practical ideas from the members and trade unions. Ed Miliband is unafraid of new radical thinking, and by putting Liam Byrne in charge shows he wants an intellectual and organisational rigour to the process. It must be a review closely integrated to the work of the NPF, but crucially which engages the members of the party. There should be local events and seminars, and an open door to anyone with a good idea.

There’ll always be a role for trade union research departments, shadow ministers’ policy advisers, academics and the IPPR. But if policymaking is purely an elite activity, the results will fail to fly with the public. Labour’s opportunity now is to create a programme which both addresses the great challenges of the age such as global warming, and the petty annoyances of modern life such as finding a dentist. In both of these, the membership will be essential.

Photo: The Labour Party