Democratising our dialogue, discussion and decisions

Ellie Reeves argues the proposed reforms of Labour’s policy-making process will strengthen party democracy

From Tribune, 17 August 2007

GORDON BROWN’S consultation document, Extending and Reviewing Party Democracy, which was broadly welcomed by Labour’s National Executive Committee when he presented it at the party’s Manchester conference, recognises the need to engage with local communities more effectively while empowering the members by involving them more in the policymaking process.

At the heart of the consultation is the role of Labour’s National Policy Forum and Partnership in Power. As a London representative on the NPF for five years, I have seen at first hand how local members have lost confidence in the NPF process. All too often, people do not know who their regional NPF representatives are. They may have never attended a local policy forum. And even if they have, their experience of it may have been very disappointing. If they made a submission on a NPF policy document, it is unlikely they would have received any feedback about what consideration – if any – was given to it. 

All this leads to scepticism about party democracy. The situation has been made worse by the confusion in recent years over the right forum for policy debate. Is it through Partnership in Power and policy forums or through vehicles such as the so-called Big Conversation and Let’s Talk?

If there is mistrust over the policymaking process, local policy forums can become insular. Instead, they need to reach out to their communities. In education, for example, they need to involve teachers, school governors and the teaching unions. The Labour Party is at its strongest and best when it works with local communities, shares their concerns and listens to their experiences.

The Prime Minister’s proposals for strengthening Partnership in Power should be welcomed. For them to work, local policy forums must allow for member participation and debate, rather than simply provide a platform for ministers to make speeches. Labour’s regional offices must be given the support and resources necessary to run effective regional policy forums.

NPF representatives need to see policy documents well in advance of meetings so they can consult with the membership before debating them at the NPF. And for ordinary Labour members to have a renewed confidence in Partnership in Power, they have to get feedback on policy submissions so they feel they have a meaningful stake in the process. A new executive of the National Policy Forum, accountable to party members, will help to ensure the NPF can achieve these aims.

Labour should not be afraid to reform its structures or scared of disagreement. There will be times when we argue, but that is part of being in a democratic party. A system where issues are considered in greater depth through a reinvigorated National Policy Forum process and then properly debated throughout the party is surely a better way of policy-making for the future where disagreements are resolved in the most effective and democratic way.

That is why I welcome Gordon Brown’s proposals that contemporary issues should be referred back from the party conference to the new, strengthened NPF for detailed scrutiny. The sustainable communities commission housing sub-committee is an example of how this can work.

Compromised of representatives from the Government, constituency parties and the trade unions, this has built up a consensus about the future of social housing. It is this consensus building after informed debate, and scrutiny, rather than late-night conference composites, which will drive forward a policy agenda which Labour members can share and be proud of.

We need to give party members a stake in the policy making process from start to finish, so I welcome the proposal that, once a Parliament starts, the membership will have a vote on the party’s programme. If we are serious about involving more members in policymaking from the start of the policy cycle, it is only right that they then get to vote at the end. Such a move would enfranchise Labour’s membership through discussion, dialogue and decision.

Ellie Reeves is a trade union lawyer and a constituency representative on Labour’s National Executive Committee

To subscribe to Tribune at the special rate of £64 per year or £33 for six months, visit our website, or call 01635 879 385

www.tribunemagazine.co.uk 




Display: Sort:

Re: Pull the other one (#2)

More talking shops are  not the answer. Brown's determination to quash meaningful  votes and policy  decision at conference   must be opposed in the strongest possible terms. The NPF is rightly treated with disdain by most grassroots members. we want our Conference restored - not finally destroyed.
Brown wants  absolute autonomy.   Proposal  5 on contemporary resolutions  will help ensure that. Why should we listen to someone whose idea  of a"government of all the talents" is to exclude anyone of the left in his OWN PARTY  and invite reactionary Tories and enemies of the trade union  movement into a tent which clearly has no pegs for democratic socialists.

Re: Pull the other one (#3)

A referendum on the EU? What, as in actually being in the EU full stop? How typically Tory. You could have slipped something about marriage, criminals and immigrants in that comment for the full set.

If you're talking about autocratic Prime Minister's, look no further than Thatcher. She acted more like a Monarch than a Prime Minister and crushed civil rights as much as she could.


Tony Blair spent 10 years clearing up the mess after Maggie and Major's reign of terror - and he did a great job of it too. Blair was the first PM who actually listened to the public's aspirations and that's why he was so successful.

Yes, all of these talking-shops are gimmicks but who cares? Cameron is just as guilty. The Tories have started advertising their 'gay credentials' on PinkNews - do you seriously think the Tories are committed to promoting gay rights, or is this just yet another stunt by Dave? (along with hug-a-hoodie, hug-a-huskie, hug-a-Hutu, windmill on roof, cycling to work with car following behind, wearing recycled trainers etc etc...)

Re: Pull the other one (#9)

No, by referendum I meant on the EU treaty, which Labour are committed to holding a referendum on because the new treaty/constitution is 95% the same as the old one. 

What rubbish. Labour had a commitment to hold a referendum on a Constitution where as this is a Treaty. It isn't called a Constitution, it doesn't have any of the trappings of a Constitution and the Constitution was rejected a couple of years ago. Therefore no referendum needs to be held.

The UK has more opt-outs from this Treaty than any other EU nation, so to say we have signed up to 95% of the old Constitution is a barefaced lie. Out of the 27 EU nations, only one is holding a referendum, which is Ireland, and that's only because their constitution tells them to.

It was a Conservative Prime Minister who took us into the EEC, it was a Conservative Prime Minister who signed us up to the Single European Act, it was a Conservative Prime Minister who signed up to Maastricht, it was a Conservative Prime Minister who took us into the EMS and it was a Conservative Prime Minister (along with incompetent advisors like Dave) who took us out of the EMS again after they made such a mess of it. So if you don't like our position in Europe, then you only have your own party to blame.

The only reason why Call-Me-Dave bangs on about Europe so much is to try and shore-up his core vote and appease the backbenchers to stop them knifing him in the back. He had the chance to reform the Tories, but he chickened out when things got tough and now it's back to the old agenda.

Re: Democratising our dialogue, (#4)

I don't really understand Ellie's point.  Referring contemporary resolutions back to the NPF would finally sap all vitality from the conference (another example of Brown getting 'the project' back on course).

Re: Democratising our dialogue, (#5)

Which is why  the unions  must unite to stop  it.....