National Policy Forum, 3 February 2007

John Prescott opened the meeting by warning against division and

calling for vigorous but constructive debate.  Tony Blair then

described a typical day in his life as leader, visiting a conference of

specialist sports colleges, an academy sponsored by business and

the local football club, a drop-in centre for young people, and a

factory building zero-emission cars charged from green energy.  All

were stakeholders in our political movement.  Despite the current

storms the ship was on course, and the biggest danger was not

embarrassment but retreating into our comfort zone, afraid to decide

and therefore to lead.  Reform must be speeded up, not slowed,

including the next stage of developing universities.  Political parties

could not operate as they had in the past, traditional structures did

not work because people wanted to engage in a different way, and

instead a stakeholder party must reach out into the community.

The press were then asked to leave, and Tony Blair fielded a wide

range of questions with his usual fluency.  He said migration was a

net benefit to Britain, and the way to prevent new Europeans from

undercutting pay and conditions was to enforce the minimum wage

and employment standards for everyone.  Labour had to understand

people’s worries about others not playing by the rules, but the Tories

could not run a serious campaign on immigration while opposing ID

cards. He hoped for agreement in Europe on rights for agency

workers while avoiding the risk of jobs moving overseas.  He was

aware of differences between county and district councillors on local

government reorganisation, but urged us to concentrate on issues

that voters cared about.

Tough Choices

Tony Blair said the Tories were incoherent on climate change,

deferring tough decisions on nuclear power and withdrawing from the

centre-right grouping in Europe rather than building international co-

operation.  A wind-turbine on Number 10 would not stop the

Greenland ice-cap melting.  We would not win simply by saying that

we cared, but by acting.  Asked if he would give every child equal

opportunities by ending the 11-plus, he said he was opposed to

selection but this was a battle not worth fighting, and Cameron

charging in to save the grammar schools would be a nightmare.

(Though Peter Hain has managed it in Northern Ireland.)  He would

express concern to the German chancellor about the Canadian seal

hunt, and Ian McCartney added that he hoped for a Europe-wide

announcement on seal products, and a ban on trade in dog and cat

fur, within weeks.

 

Finally Tony Blair said he had no views on appointing a national

youth officer, though anyone aware of recent difficulties knows there

is no money for new jobs, and even this meeting of the forum,

praised as the centre-piece of our serious, well-grounded policy-

making process, only took place because of the generosity of the

trade unions.  He was sure that young people did care about politics,

but they did not live or think within constituency or national

boundaries.  He returned to his theme that bureaucratic changes

were not the answer, and suggested that the party of the future

should be modelled on non-governmental organisations, engaging

stakeholders with many diverse interests.  Some of these issues

would doubtless surface in the course of the deputy leadership

election, and he warned that modernising required changing in ways

that we don’t find comfortable.  None of this has been discussed with

or by the NEC, and I intend to find out what it all means.

 

The Big Picture

Greg Cook, the party’s in-house pollster and analyst, ran through the

effects of constituency boundary changes which, as widely reported,

would cut Labour’s majority by about 12 all else being equal.  To

remain a national party Labour had to hold seats in the south – in

1987 there were just three Labour MPs in the south-west, south-east

and eastern regions, increasing to 10 in 1992 and 59 in 1997, so our

roots were relatively shallow.  He was followed by Pat McFadden

MP, convenor of the cabinet working groups, who had the impossible

job of explaining their work through dozens of densely-printed

overheads in less than twenty minutes.  The crime, justice,

citizenship and equalities commission has seen two of the papers, on

the role of the state and on security, crime and justice, and they are

in fact well worth reading, thoughtful and backed by experience from

other countries.  I am told they are available on the cabinet office

website, and hopefully summaries will be circulated.  

 

Health Scares

There was only time for one workshop each, and I chose public

services, which focused on health.  Minister Caroline Flint said that

rising expectations presented a huge challenge:  for instance, most

people thought the state should fund all new drugs for all purposes. 

She repeated that voters wanted choice, though it was pointed out

that unless there was surplus capacity, choices would be made by

the providers or by lottery.  The main problem, across the country,

was that people felt deprived of choice and voice by threats to valued

services, particularly maternity units, with patients and visitors facing

long journeys, poor public transport and high parking costs.  Caroline

argued that specialist centres with experienced staff could give better

treatment, and more services, such as blood testing and palliative

care, could be provided in the community rather than in hospital.

There were concerns about the drain of private finance initiative

schemes, excessive use of agency nurses, mental health losing out,

and failure to join up social services, drug treatment, health, prison,

probation and housing.  However, emphasis on primary care and

prevention was supported.  I argued that smokers should not be

charged extra as their taxes exceed their costs, and they save on

pensions by dying earlier, but Caroline raised the expense of bigger

bus seats and hospital beds to cope with obesity.  And a recurring

complaint:  many people report excellent personal experiences, but

believe they were just lucky, and overall the system is a mess.  How

can we counter prejudice with fact?

Under Fire

The last session was led by defence minister Des Browne, who

gained credit for sticking to his guns while responding calmly to those

who disagreed with him.  He claimed that deterrence had been

proved to work over fifty years, and the government had no right to

deprive our children of choice over keeping or discarding nuclear

weapons in what might be a very different world.  In response to

questions he said that submarine-launched intercontinental ballistic

missiles were preferred because they were virtually invulnerable and

guaranteed awesome force; we were not threatening other people’s

children because the weapons would only be used in extreme

situations; though government briefings cited numbers of jobs

involved, this was not in itself a reason for going ahead; and Trident

would not be at the expense of proper equipment for troops.  He

agreed with Christine Shawcroft that nuclear weapons would not

deter terrorists, though Tony Blair in his speech to parliament

believed they would have an impact on states which sponsored

terrorism.  And he admitted that if Britain did not already have

nuclear weapons the government would not propose acquiring them.  

Various members had consulted widely, most finding a majority

against Trident:  two-thirds of over 100 responding to south-east

representatives, an “overwhelming” proportion in London, 57% of 200

replies to two NEC representatives, 84% of 1090 responses to a

Compass on-line poll.  The exception was the Chair of Labour

Students who reported that 80% of 120 people at a meeting backed

upgrading Trident, so young people may not be radical in quite the

way that some assume.  He feared Britain would lose its position on

the world stage, its UN security council seat, and its influence in

tackling climate change and world poverty.  Des Browne said that

this was untrue and a poor argument. 

He upset some members by appearing to dismiss all the feedback. 

But while any method of collecting views can be criticised, the

Forum’s own Britain in the World policy commission seems a

complete irrelevance.  It reported receiving only eight submissions on

the white paper and the issues that it raised, which presumably

includes the motions ruled out of order at conference.  In line with the

NEC decision there were no votes, and it was difficult to gauge

opinion as most members did not speak, and none of the trade union

delegates.  However, I am happy to quote Keith Sonnet, Chair of the

policy commission, writing for UNISON’s conference last summer: 

“As a nation we are committed under the nuclear non-proliferation

treaty to getting rid of our nuclear weapons.  We can set an example

to the rest of the world.  That takes courage.  Our government can

either follow meekly the nuclear path or it can show real courage,

vision, strength and leadership.”

Questions and comments are welcome, and I am happy for this to be

circulated to members – and supporters - as a personal account, not

an official record.  Past reports are at www.annblack.com