National Policy Forum, London, 19 July 2003

 

For once the Forum had no documents to discuss, as all ten are out

with members. Submissions must be in by 2 October for the

second-wave first-year documents, which will be revised in

November and reissued for further consultation, returning to the

Forum in July 2004. The deadline for comments on the first-wave

second-year documents is 12 November 2003, and the Forum will

agree them next March. All ten will then be signed off at the 2004

conference. (If you are still confused, please see:

http://www.annblack.com/partnership_made_easy.htm  or contact

your local representative.)

 

Instead the day was devoted to cross-cutting themes, and the

workings of the Forum itself. Opening in sombre mood Ian

McCartney, John Prescott and Gordon Brown expressed sympathy

for the family of Dr David Kelly, and called for a period of restraint,

reflection and respect. Ian McCartney promised a review of

Partnership in Power after the next election, but stressed its

superiority over the old policy-making system, which only involved a

handful of members. Now thousands can contribute. Policy

commissions must deal effectively with issues as they arise, in

dialogue with ministers and members.

 

Gordon Brown highlighted achievements so far, with youth

unemployment slashed, half a million children lifted out of poverty,

and a fairer tax system, with the richest paying 54% under Labour

as against 44% under the Tories. Further measures, such as the

pensioner’s credit, were in the pipeline. Labour must also tackle the

ravages of TB, HIV/AIDS and other illnesses in the developing

world.

 

He and John Prescott then took questions. On the euro, Gordon

said that if Britain joined under the right conditions, trade would

increase by 50% over 30 years, transaction costs would fall, and

growth would rise, but Labour must not repeat the Tory mistakes

with the ERM. He recognised that the Private Finance Initiative was

not popular with party members, but argued that it brought extra

investment, and promised that workers would not be exploited.

Manufacturing was vitally important, and 220,000 young people

were in modern apprenticeships. The old system of student support

could not be sustained with current numbers, but now there were no

up-front charges to deter people.

 

John Prescott hoped that English regional government would

acquire more powers, but referenda in the North, NorthEast and

NorthWest would at least put the framework in place. He agreed

that top-up fees and foundation trusts had not come through the

Forum, but what mattered most was the character of debate,

wherever it was held. Trade unions, councillors, and others always

opened conversations with “Yes, Labour has done lots of good

things, BUT . . .” It was time for more “Yes” and less “But”.

 

Crystal Balls

 

Liam Byrne introduced a paper on Britain in 2020, written to

simulate discussion within the Labour party. It speculates on shifts

in medicine from diagnose-and-cure to predict-and-prevent, the

effects of climate change, the ageing population, and growth in

computer power, with fridges automatically ordering food. I recall

that twenty years ago, forecasters thought the main problem would

be how to fill our leisure time, but more people now work longer

hours than in 1984. These attempts may be similarly wide of the

mark. However there are many fascinating numbers: for instance

only 15% of the population trust political parties and 20% the press,

but 39% trust the trade unions.

 

Hazel Blears MP cited research from Switzerland showing that

democracy makes people happier. She suggested promoting

community involvement through letting people do voluntary work

without loss of benefits, and encouraging employers to grant time

off. Alan Whitehead MP took a less rosy view in posing a series of

choices. How would we handle the gap between the technology-

rich majority and the technology-poor minority? Should we attempt

to meet the demands of demographic change and constant mobility,

or try to slow the process down? And most importantly, how do we

maintain collective decision-making in a fractured society, with

citizens as consumers and spectators, working from home and

buying from the internet, susceptible to manipulation by single-issue

lobbyists?

 

Joined-Up Thinking

 

For the afternoon we split into groups, and I chose Rights and

Responsibilities. Some thought the main problem was instilling

responsibility into the benefit-dependent culture on sink estates. I

felt that this was too easy a target. Local and central government

can punish low-income trouble-makers by cutting their benefits or

evicting them from council houses, but have no leverage over

wealthy lager louts or arrogant owner-occupiers. Others argued that

the government had sweeping responsibilities to explain, consult

and listen which it did not always demonstrate, especially in

obstructing European social measures. The fashionable subject of

corporate social responsibility was explored, and businesses were

asked to get involved in providing jobs for local people, rather than

just sitting on committees. And there appeared to be consensus

that equality of outcome, not just of opportunity, should not be

abandoned by the Labour party.

 

Brief reportbacks from the other groups followed. On Multi-Level

Democracy, people asked for more pluralism and multiplicity with

less fragmentation, if these are compatible. Real powers should be

devolved. The Science and Risk workshop wanted to convey the

excitement of science and publicise the benefits of the MMR

vaccine and new foods, instead of being driven by media fears.

Poor countries should share in the benefits of development in

pharmaceuticals and agriculture.

 

The Helping Families group argued for extended childcare and the

right for parents to work part-time and flexible hours. Key workers

were defined too narrowly and there was too little affordable housing

all round. Changing Demographics also called for flexibility to

accommodate an ageing population. They criticised the national

obsessions with having baths, and felt that walk-in showers would

require much less work in adapting homes for the infirm. (I think I

have got this straight, but personally I intend to enjoy hot baths well

into old age.)

 

Getting Better

 

During the lunch-break, members were invited to write suggestions

for improvement on big flip-charts, and these were followed up in

the final session. After six years there is growing acceptance that

Forum members should be able to read what members send, either

through visiting the files at Old Queen Street, or eventually on the

website. More constituencies are holding policy forums, but

worryingly some do not bother sending the results to the party. For

example Mid-Bedfordshire feels that “attending local policy forums

is pointless, because the big policy decisions are made by the

hierarchy of the party and not at local level”. The challenge is to

start providing evidence that ordinary members can indeed make a

difference. Egging constituencies on to hold more forums will

simply widen the gap between what members expect and what the

party can deliver.

 

Members were keen to raise the Forum’s profile, and hoped that

contact details could be displayed on the website. But regrettably

we still have a two-tier Forum. Constituency representatives are

elected at the annual conference and accountable to it, but get no

help with travel or accommodation, and have to pay £82.25 even to

register. Some are still at school, others have families, but all must

find hundreds of pounds out of their own pockets, or stay home like

Cinderella. The same applies to socialist society representatives.

Meanwhile trade union delegates get hotel and travel bills paid,

allowances for meals, sometimes reimbursement for loss of

earnings, and all the fun of the fair. This discrimination is

unacceptable in a PFI scheme and it ought to be unacceptable in

the Labour party.

 

Full reports from the National Policy Forum and the NEC are

available at http://www.annblack.com  or from

Ann Black, ann.black@unisonfree.net