Latest post on Left Futures

Labour’s policy process: the stitch ups of old

Gordon Brown at the NPF 2008This weekend, Labour’s national policy forum (NPF) meets in Milton Keynes for the last time before the general election. It will agree a programme which will be put to Labour Party conference for agreement in September. The last time the forum met to do this, known as “Warwick II”, was in 2008 with Gordon Brown as prime minister. Although at that time NPF constituency reps were not elected by OMOV, and every single one was the leadership’s favoured candidate “elected” at conference, the rest of the process this time has been similar in most respects. Here is Peter Willsman’s account of those proceedings, abridged from The saga of Warwick II in Campaign Briefing, published by the Campaign for Labour Party Democracy in Autumn 2008 .

This year, for the first time, following pressure from Unions and CLPs, backed by CLPD, the constituencies were given the right to submit as many amendments as they wished to the 6 final-stage NPF documents. But, instead of going direct to the NPF at Warwick II (25/27 July 2008), they went instead to one of eleven regional meetings (each consisting of 5 regional CLP reps and 2 reps elected by the whole region). Altogether over 200 CLPs submitted a grand total of some 4,000 amendments.

The large majority of these sought a change of direction towards more progressive policies. At the regional meetings the 7 reps were under no obligation to progress the amendments, but they were generally encouraged to pick them up and submit them to the NPF in their own names. Around 1,500 of the CLP amendments were picked up and progressed to Warwick II.

Given that there was considerable duplication of amendments, it seems likely that the vast majority of the CLP amendments were progressed. In addition, the other members of the 190-strong NPF were able to submit textual amendments to Warwick II. Many took this opportunity, especially the trade unions and the four centre-left members of the NEC (Ann Black, Christine Shawcroft, Peter Willsman and Walter Wolfgang). Altogether over 2,000 amendments were submitted to the NPF.

At Warwick, the Friday was taken up by some 400 meetings between groups of NPF reps and ministers on specific policy areas, in an attempt to agree “consensus wording”. The Saturday was given over to ‘workshops’, where the NPF reps discussed the agreed consensus wording and the outstanding amendments.

At the same time, lots of side meetings with ministers were held to search for an elusive consensus. The side meetings involving union reps continued until nearly 6am on Sunday morning.

Throughout this time individual reps with specific amendments were hunted down by earnest officials clutching “consensus wording”. It has to be said that this process of ‘cutting and sticking’ was much more fraught and unprofessional than the well-ordered arrangements for compositing on the Saturday afternoons in the pre ‘Partnership in Power’ days. And yet, of course, devious Blairites are still trying to re-write history by pouring scorn on those good old days.

During the weekend several meetings of CLP reps were called by Simon Burgess, NPF Vice-Chair representing CLPs. The 6 CLP reps on the NEC were deliberately excluded from these meetings. This was somewhat insulting, given that most of the CLP NPF reps are only elected by a handful of un-mandated CLP delegates at annual conference, whereas the NEC reps are elected by some 20,000 party members.

It would be fair to say that the 1,500 amendments that originated from CLPs did set something of a progressive mood to the weekend and, no doubt, assisted the Unions to achieve a better result. Nevertheless, as was clear in Sunday’s plenary, there were distinct limits on just how progressive the NPF was prepared to be.

Following their agreements with Ministers, the Unions, as a block, agreed to abstain on all amendments covering Iraq/Afghanistan, the 42 days, Trident and anything that could conceivably be considered to “cut across” the union agreements.

On Sunday, in the final plenary, all outstanding amendments were voted upon. There were 161 NPF reps present at the start of the meeting. Of these some 65 were CLP reps from across all the sections (this included 5 CLP reps supported by the CLGA (the 4 NEC members and Carol Hayton, South East Region). There were some 50 TU reps present from across all the sections. 81 votes or more therefore represented a majority, and meant that an amendment was endorsed into the final document. 41 votes or more (25%) meant that an amendment went forward to Annual Conference as a minority position. In many cases the platform contended that the outstanding amendments were covered by the ‘consensus wording’, but several movers pressed for a vote because they were not entirely convinced by this argument.

The voting on each of the 6 documents was in almost every case just 5 or 6 for the amendment. Those rejected with so few votes in favour included phased withdrawl from Iraq and Afghanistan, welcoming Carter’s Middle East peace initiative and the international court of justice’s decision on illegal settlements etc, non-replacement of Trident, opposition to ID cards, a moratorium on foundation hospitals, opposing further privatisation in the NHS, opposing the outsourcing of commissioning in the NHS, restoring in 2010 the link between pensions and earnings, a windfall tax on energy and oil companies and the restoration of a 10p tax band wit the introduction of a 50% band for those earning over £100,000.

Three (support for a wholly elected House of Lords, opposition to PR at local government level, fur labelling) were endorsed. Two more were established as minority positions (on a review of the civil legal aid system and democratic representation on police authorities) which went to conference. Three others received between 28 and 33 votes – not enough to establish a minority position – on the excessively revolutionary issues of gaps in anti-discrimination legislation, increasing numbers of parent governors at academy schools, changing balloting arrangements for school selections, and strengthening enforcement of the national minimum wage.

4 Comments

  1. Robert says:

    Well in other words it was bog standard labour of old, in which we the public have no idea of what the hell is going on other then we will end up with what labour wants and Miliband thinks will win him an election or Tory Lite.

    All this means is that nothing which will help the people the sick or the disabled will come of this because in the end it’s what Miliband and his gang want.

    I think this whole article has done sod all to make me feel like voting for what is a blood shower in government on both sides of the divide.

  2. Ministers should be servants not masters. Where is the strong policy reversing outsourcing in Nhs, prisons, education etc. Building council housing. Building nationalised power stations. Ending fractional reserve banking. Common sense solutions not tinkering around the edges. Keep fighting grass roots members eventually we will set the agenda again.

  3. swatantra says:

    I’ve voted for all 6 women providing greater representation from all wings of the Party, and BAME, and the firm belief that its only women will put things right.

  4. Ann says:

    Although Ken and Ann’s votes will fall due to them voting for Ed’s Falkirk reforms and Christine’s vote will fall due to her lack of profile, it’s Obvious Johanna, Ellie, Ken and Ann will win, and Luke may replace Peter wheeler just, and Kate may come a close 7th, but Unless Kate replaces Christine, the 6 will probably be the same

© 2024 Left Futures | Powered by WordPress | theme originated from PrimePress by Ravi Varma