The press has reported this terribly badly.  But then they always do.  They reported the beginning of the process of CLPs submitting amendments to the policy documents with great fanfares after the local elections (turning it, as they so often do, into a personal story about Gordon Brown, rather than a story about our internal policy-making structures).  The same reporters seem to have missed that this was the conclusion of the same process - the NPF was instead turned into a process where 'the unions' met with 'the party' to issue demands, most of which 'the party' 'successfully' rejected.

This is a bizarre narrative, and had nothing to do with the reality.  Unfortunately though, it would seem the union leaders did backroom deals (not terribly good ones) and won one or two slight concessions in exchange for supporting some exceptionally right-wing policies.  But in this they were not supporting 'the party' but the leadership.

After all, the party submitted amendments in great numbers.

How many were submitted saying they wanted Purnell's new welfare reform proposals?  Any CLPs going to tell us that they put in those amendments?  Or what about an extention of city academies, or the Darzi report health reforms?   I spoke to quite a few CLP activists about the amendments that they submitted and I don't recall those.

I know a hell of a lot were sent in about council housing - anything come from them?  Temporary and Agency Workers (I understand there have been slight advances there, presented - of course - as party concessions to union demands, rather than as the movement winning one or two small crumbs from the leadership, which would be a more realistic representation); basic trade union rights (hardly anything); change to age and the minimum wage (I understand it the adult rate will come in at 21 rather than 22 - again presented as a concession to 'union demands').  People sent in amendments about welfare and education - but the ones I saw were all quite contrary to the decisions at Warwick.

How did the process work?  I really want an NPF rep to come onto Labour Home and explain it.  We sent in all those amendments.  I made our poor CLP secretary spend a whole evening typing ours into the computer system.  I know Save the Labour Party maintained some manner of repository of amendments on the MemberNet website, people attached to some of the internal pressure groups copied the groups into their amendments (e.g. lengthy emails to the LRC, etc.).  But of course there will have been other amendments that we're unaware of, as they carefully avoided all requests for transparency.

What happened to the amendments?  I lobbied my local NPF reps and I got some replies saying they'd read our CLP's submissions.  But what happened after they read them?  There were huge numbers of them, some of them on similar themes.  For all the horrors of compositing, would it not have been logical for us to be invited to be involved in coming to a common form of words?  Should we not understand the process by which amendments were accepted or rejected?  (Were any accepted?)  Was any attention given to the weight of amendments?  If there were 600 amendments saying we should invest in council housing and 3 saying we should reduce the voting age to 16, did that have an impact?

This was another missed opportunity.  When I was at school and when I was an undergraduate, I dreamed of two years of Labour government.  Yet we seem determined to do nothing with the next two years - certainly very little that wouldn't just as at home on Cameron's manifesto (indeed some of the proposals certainly will be there) - and seem determined not to have a vision for the future.  In so far as there is an embarrased groping for a vision, it is one that seems quite emphatically not to emerge from the passions, beliefs and desires of Labour Party members and supporters.

Yet, if we could have come up with something impressive, exciting, radical and emphatically Labour, we might just have been able to salvage things.  There'll be other opportunities, but they're rapidly running out.

In the end, if we can't influence policy, all that's left is personnel (and even then, we're only allowed a role if it has a guaranteed no-impact on policy).  And we're back to silly popularity contests like last year's deputy leadership elections.

Is it any wonder party membership is struggling?  I want to go out and get us some more members.  Just what should I say to potential members to persuade them?  Last year the recruiting campain was 'Join Us to Join In'.  Have we any new lies to try?