A response to the official Labour Party document ‘Extending and renewing party democracy’, on which the Labour Party's official "consultation" with unions and Constituency Labour Parties closes on 14 September. The document essentially proposes that unions and CLPs should lose their current limited rights to put "contemporary" motions to Labour Party conference.
Summary
The Labour Party leadership have opened a period of consultation on a set of proposals from Gordon Brown, which if implemented, would end annual conference playing any meaningful role in party policy making.
Under these proposals:
The right of each Constituency Labour Party and affiliated organisation to submit a contemporary resolution for debate and voting at conference would be abolished.
The policy forum process would be subject to even greater centralised control by cabinet ministers and the inbuilt government powers of veto on policy proposals strengthened
One member one vote ballots on policy would not allow members a say on policy alternatives, but would be restricted to the occasional ‘take it or leave it’ votes on the entire party programme.
If implemented the proposals would mean that:
Party members and trade unionists would lose the right to bring forward any kind of policy proposals to be voted on by conference.
99% of the remaining votes still permitted at conference would be on ‘take it or leave it’ proposals from the leadership
All the formal powers that conference once held to determine party policy would be transferred to the leadership which would only have to ‘consult’ with the policy forum.
Only if a sizeable minority within the policy forum decided to take an issue to conference would the rest of the party get a vote on the issue.
Even if the minority view within the policy forum was supported in a vote at party conference there would be no way of ensuring that the policy became part of the party programme.
Taken as a whole the proposals are designed to prevent the process of democratic debate within the party ever again getting to the point were the leadership face any serious pressure to change course. They are about restricting debate, controlling the policy agenda in the interests of the Westminster political elite and preventing the views and experiences of party members in the community, and union members in the workplace ever challenging the narrow parameters of ‘New Labour’ orthodoxy.
The problem with party democracy
It is significant that the consultation questions do not ask party members for their views on how satisfied they are with the way the existing Partnership in Power institutions and the National Policy Forum work.
The question is not asked because the leadership don’t want to hear the answer.
It is widely known within the party that there is profound distrust and cynicism about the entire policy forum process.
Members have a perception that devolving most responsibility for policy-making to the National Policy Forum has been used as a means of denying them a say over contentious current policy issues.
Many members feel marginalised and the Partnership in Power framework is losing credibility.
Distrust is fuelled when, in clear breach of undertakings made in 1997, Ministers announce they will ignore Alternative Positions from the NPF (such as rail re-nationalisation and the fourth option for council tenants) that were carried by Annual Conference, the Party’s sovereign body.
Distrust is further fuelled when major controversial policies, such as foundation hospitals and top-up fees, aren’t taken through the PiP process at all, but are simply steam rollered through Parliament by leadership diktat
This lack of credibility and distrust helps explain why Party membership has collapsed since 1997
The best thing from the point of view of party democracy would be for the policy forum to be abolished and power returned to annual conference.
If the leadership wanted to genuinely renew the policy forum process they would be looking at reforms such as:
1.The right to amend policy forum documents at conference.
At the final stage of the policy making process, alongside any alternative positions from the NPF, Annual Conference should also be able to consider amendments to the NPF documents submitted directly from CLPs and affiliated organisations. The Party needs to encourage a culture where differences of opinion are welcomed, replacing the narrow control and command culture of recent years.
2.Contemporary motions passed by conference should be taken as amending the relevant policy forum documents.
Policy carried by Annual Conference should be incorporated into the Party Programme (as set out in the Rule Book). The Party Programme should be regularly updated and published by the NEC as a rolling programme. The NEC should ensure that this document is included in the Manifesto drafting process and at the Clause V meeting which approves the final draft of the Manifesto.
3.It should be made easier for minorities within the policy forum to get their viewpoint discussed by conference.
The threshold for alternative positions to be put to conference should be lowered to 15% of those attending the NPF meeting where the vote is taken. Forum members need to be given more time to prepare their amendments. And those involved with alternative positions should be able to redraft them at the NPF to take account of discussions at the NPF. At Annual Conference there should be provision for voting in parts on NPF documents, instead of the current take-it-or-leave-it basis.
What the proposals say and what they really mean
There are seven key proposals in the consultation document:
Proposal 1: A commitment to give greater
support to local Labour Parties in holding
Policy Forums and creating a duty on the
NPF to better consult, engage and involve
party members in policy discussions.
A promise to consult will only breed cynicism unless the leadership spell out how they are going to consult. Members of the party and affiliated organisations want to know how they are going to be consulted. Many support the kind of reforms we have outlined above.
Proposal 2: Strengthen the NPF with a
regular workplan and meeting schedule, an
open and constant dialogue with ministers
and a greater ability to provide feedback to
party members and stakeholders.
‘Strengthening the NPF’ is code for weakening conference.
Party members want to know about the detail of how dialogue and feedback will work. If the leadership are serious about opening up the policy forum process then they would be looking at the kind of proposals put forward by the Campaign for Labour Party Democracy such as:
There should be more consultation on specific current policy issues and more discussion at the NPF on such issues.
Government Green and White Papers should be submitted to the NPF for debate and possible amendment.
Those sections of the NPF that are subject to election should be elected annually, to maintain accountability.
All submissions made to the NPF (except duplicate material) should be available at appropriate NPF meetings for NPF members to consult at their leisure.
There should be regular reports to the NPF detailing progress on policy implementation by Ministers, especially in relation to the Manifesto and conference decisions.
The proceedings of the NPF need to be more transparent. Consideration should be given to publishing a synopsis of Forum discussions (perhaps using a website), which records why particular ideas were not adopted. CLPs and affiliates need to be able to trace the progress of their submissions. There should be recorded votes at NPF meetings when requested by 5% of those present.
Proposal 3: The JPC will take on an
enhanced executive function in relation
to the operation of the NPF and the PiP
process, meeting every two months. A new
group of JPC Officers will lead the committee
and have regular meetings with government
ministers to ensure ongoing dialogue.
This means that the policy making process will be even more tightly controlled by the Joint Policy Committee which has an inbuilt government majority. This is a proposal for greater centralisation.
Proposal 4: Annual Conference to be given
a more substantial role in directing and
monitoring the work of the NPF. 12 NPF
representatives will be directly elected by
Conference in order to reinforce the links
between the two institutions in light of the
new contemporary issues process.
These additional representatives will have no clear policy mandate as conference will only in future be able to vote on proposals that come to it from the policy forum. Conference as whole should direct the work of the NPF, this can’t be done by adding an additional 12 token representatives.
Proposal 5: A new contemporary issues
process through which party units would
be able to submit issues, following proper
consultation, for consideration in the
priorities ballot at Annual Conference. Each
issue that succeeds in the ballot will be
debated at Conference and be included in
a work programme in the relevant policy
commission.
This means the abolition of votes on contemporary issues at conference. It removes the one remaining mechanism through which party members can hope to get a specific policy issue raised, debated and voted on. The new contemporary issues process suggested would reduce conference to the status of a powerless talking shop and sounding board. The way it is proposed to treat issues raised by CLPs and affiliates is reminiscent of the notorious workplace ‘suggestions box’. The process lacks all democratic credibility.
Proposal 6: The final policy documents
agreed by the National Policy Forum will be
the subject of an OMOV ballot.
This means that all that the wider membership will get to vote on is a ‘take it or leave it’ proposal from the NPF. This will not increase participation or give members a say on policy. Members will feel patronised as the tokenism of it is blatant. Members will ask why they aren’t allowed to vote on important things like the war in Iraq. It will prove very costly to both the party and affiliates without genuinely increasing participation one iota.
Proposal 7: Support for local parties and
Labour Groups to consult and engage their
communities.
A good idea. But will the leadership ignore us when our communities tell us that Labour should be taxing the rich at a higher level than we tax cleaners, ending PFI, building council houses, running the NHS and our other public services on the basis of need not private greed, giving agency workers equal rights at work, paying the postal workers and unshackling our unions?
Extending or exterminating Labour Party democracy?
The proposals from the leadership are not just an attack on Labour Party democracy, they are a very serious attack on democracy itself.
The proposals would finish off annual conference as a serious political event. There would be only the most tenuous link between the political life of constituency parties and affiliates and the policy making process of the party as a whole. Shocking though it is to say it, under these proposals Labour Party conference would become by far the least democratic annual gathering of any major political party in Britain.
The proposals represent an attempt to finally destroy the Labour Party as a democratic political organisation based on the labour movement. Instead of a broad based party grounded on the participation of organisations with roots in the communities and workplaces, Labour would be reduced to the status of a US style political party. It would be nothing more than a narrow political machine populated by members of the professional political elite. The goal of giving working class people a voice in politics through the labour movement, which is why the party was set up in the first place, would no longer be the party’s purpose. The only input that the labour movement would have in the new party structure would be through a junior lobbying role in the policy forum for trade union and council leaders. In the real world this limited opportunity for getting the message across would never counteract the fact that policy wonks, spin doctors and the business lobby have more or less permanent access to ministers.
If the Labour Party is destroyed as any kind of political party of the working class movement, then it means the end of serious choice in elections. The working class would be to all intents and purposes disenfranchised. We would be back to the situation we faced when the party was first founded.
