Listening to Ed Miliband’s speech at the National Policy Forum on Saturday, I found it powerful and determined, albeit spoken in a calm and laid-back manner, without notes. Perhaps it was this relaxed delivery – more like a seminar than a political speech – which upset the Tory press. But when you are in a small group of only 150 or so individuals, most of whom know each other well, histrionics don’t go down well. In the same situation, I remember at times Tony Blair being messianic and Gordon Brown prowling about like a caged animal but they sometimes forgot that the NPF is, above all, collegiate; it’s about the members, not the leader’s ego.

Tony Blair wrote off everything that had gone before and called it Old Labour. Ed Miliband refuses to trash his predecessors but instead says he wants to go “beyond New Labour”. This common-sense statement is enough for the Tory press to label him woolly, “Milibland” or whatever. (And it’s too much for some of the Blairite irreconcilables for whom even a hint of criticism of The Man is like blasphemy).

But the direction of travel is surely clear enough. For example, the Clause Four change symbolised Labour’s final acceptance of capitalism; it is also clear that markets don’t always work, but Blair/Brown could never bring themselves to utter this truism. The bewilderment of the small-business person who can’t get a loan, the discomfort of the commuter on an overcrowded train, or the frustration of a householder trying to phone a utility call-centre are all about market failure. These aren’t abstractions – they’re real people, in concrete situations, and potential electors who should be coming home to Labour. Likewise it was a New Labour achievement that we cracked down on antisocial behaviour but it was pointless machismo to go for a wildly expensive ID card system. Miliband simply refuses to be tied down to specific policy pronouncements which would be inappropriate so early in the electoral cycle. At this point, it’s right to consult, and Liam Byrne’s policy review is an essential part of this.

The tone of NPF meetings is set by the question sessions and working groups. I spoke to many delegates at Gillingham and reactions seemed positive. Disappointingly for the Daily Mail, I could not detect any splits. Specific issues raised included tax avoidance, (for instance a recent case involving Vodafone) local government cuts, housing and the Irish situation. The subject areas discussed were higher education, the NHS, welfare reform, the economy, and, (Paul Richards will be glad to hear), constitutional reform.

Labour’s deliberative style of policy-making can be rewarding for the participants but it demands work and commitment from all those involved. It was always intended to go beyond the Labour Party and bring in the community generally and the new team are committed to making this happen. Part of our agenda concerned reform of the process itself, which at times is impenetrable. The way that submissions have sometimes disappeared into a “black hole” without proper follow-up has been universally criticised. Delegates went away with a better understanding of the review programme which will now take place up to June of next year.

Under New Labour the NPF was, too often, manipulated. It is to Miliband’s and Hain’s credit that they take it seriously. I don’t think they are seeking popularity in the party – they simply understand that the members deserve to be involved, that a politically engaged membership links better with the wider public and that it can form part of a long-term movement for change. It can also campaign more effectively. The Scottish, Welsh and local elections in May next year formed a backdrop to the discussions and there is already a strong sense of anticipation.

Photo: Zoe Norfolk, crown copyright