National Policy Forum

Pauline Bryan

There appears to be a new strategy in the Policy Forum Process - make things so bland that nobody cares whether they get passed or not.

The two documents presented to the March policy forum are at the final stages of the process. `Reconnecting People and Politics' and `Britain in an Interdependent World' were open to direct amendment before going to the October Conference.

Far from offering the basis for a manifesto on which to fight the next election, these two documents are a mish-mash of feeble comments. The texts presented could have been knocked together in a few hours and hardly reflect the hours of effort put in by local meetings, NPF discussions and the work of the Commissions. They do however serve a purpose. They will give the leadership carte blanche to interpret the documents into a manifesto without the inconvenience of firm policies to restrict them.

Tackling World Poverty
"While the challenge ahead is daunting, Labour believes progress can be achieved and that poverty can be eliminated from the world."... "Labour is the Party of international solidarity and social justice and in government is determined to ensure Britain fulfils its potential to be a force for good in tackling world poverty."
All those in favour?

Iraq
"The decision to take military action in Iraq was divisive for the Party, as well as for the country and the international community. But the UN can only maintain its credibility and effectiveness in governing the international order if its will is enforced. "The Labour Party strongly believes, however, that military action must always be the option of last resort."

One Rule for the USA
"Labour believes that security and respect for human rights cannot be separated. By taking firm action to address human rights violations whenever they occur, the international community can help address the root causes of conflict and make a real contribution to global security."

USA or EU
"Many submissions to the Policy Commission felt the UK's foreign policy leaned too much towards the US at the expense of the EU. But our membership of the EU and our relationship with the US are both central to our active and engaged foreign policy. The US is the world's only superpower with the largest economy and by far the most powerful armed forces - and views about American foreign policy are bound to vary."
Well that cleared up that question.

The paper does however hold the line on nuclear weapons and the missile defence system. Its mealy-mouthed statement that the Government has agreed to the request from the US to upgrade Fylingdales so as to test its missile defence capability ends with "This does not in itself commit the UK to any greater participation in the US missile defence programme, which would require further public consultation". In other words Ð don't adopt a policy that would limit the actions of a future Labour Government.
In this round of policy (and I use that word loosely) formation the NPF can move direct amendments to the document. Those moving amendments are invited to meet with the Ministers responsible who may accept the amendment, try to establish a `consensus' alternative or reject the amendment. If the amendment is not accepted the mover can take it to a session of the full NPF.

Amendment on pre-emptive action
An amendment moved by Ann Black and George McManus, both active in the Central Left Grass Roots Alliance read: "However, an increasingly well-educated and questioning electorate has to be convinced of the actual threat posed by targets of pre-emptive action, and that other options for dealing with the situation have been fully explored. There is also the danger that of if the United States and Britain act unilaterally, other countries may use this to justify their own pre-emptive attacks, thereby increasing international instability." It emerged from the session with the Minister with the `consensus' wording "However, an increasingly well-educated and questioning electorate needs to be convinced of the actual threat posed by targets of pre-emptive action, and that other options for dealing with the situation have been fully explored."

Amendment on Cluster Bombs
An amendment that started as "Labour will now go further, by calling for a world-wide ban on the use of cluster bombs." Was put through the consensus mill and ended up as "Britain will use its leading position in the world to encourage effective alternatives to cluster bombs, whilst protecting jobs, and once this has been achieved to support a world wide ban." It is hard to imagine what an "effective alternative" is to a cluster bomb. Is it one that creates even more horrific injuries?
After all this consensus had been achieved there were precisely three amendments left to vote on from this document. The first was a call for the phasing out of Trident. This was defeated and failed to get the 35 votes that would have put it on the agenda at Annual Conference. There were 14 abstentions including some trade unions. If those abstaining had voted in favour this would have been sufficient to ensure a discussion and vote by Conference delegates. Two opposing views on missile defence were put to the vote the one that called for no further collaboration was defeated with most of the unions voting against the one allowing government to do what it likes was carried overwhelmingly.

The second paper taken was Reconnecting People and Politics.

Much of the introduction could well have been applied to the Labour Party itself. "We need our institutions to be accountable and responsive and encourage participation so that when people get involved their opinions have an effect."

The most successful amendment was moved by a Centre Left Grass Roots Alliance supporter, Gary Ransford and supported by GMB. It simply deleted the words "foundation trust boards" from a list of examples of ways to participate in local decision making. The amendment received 50 votes; this was not enough to change the document, but was sufficient to allow it to be voted on at Conference. This could result in the bizarre situation of the only discussion around Foundation Hospitals coming under the question of local Democracy, Devolution.

Other issues to go to Conference will be the lowering of the voting age to 16 and a very feeble Unison amendment on Lords Reform which says it should be as "democratic as possible" but without making a firm proposal. It "could include direct elections, indirect elections or appointment by a democratic body, or a mix of all three." Well that clears that up.

The next round of Policy Forum documents to be considered in July will be three composite documents: Building Prosperity for All; which will incorporate Britain in the Global Economy; A Modern Welfare State and Prosperity for All. Improving Health and Education, incorporating: The Best Education for All and Improving Health and Social Care. Creating Sustainable Communities, incorporating: Enhancing the Quality of Life; Sustainable Communities, Better Transport and Justice, Security and Community.

The unions did not flex their muscles on policy issues at this session, but they did take the opportunity to slap Ian McCartney down on a procedural point. McCartney tried to rule that if the consensus wording was accepted by the NPF, then any remaining amendments that had not been incorporated into the consensus would fall. After some behind the scene pressure this ruling was reversed with McCartney making a statement of contrition. The issues to be discussed at the next session will, hopefully, see the unions and constituency delegates supporting more opportunities for debate at Conference and not accepting mealy-mouthed compromises. Unless this happens we may as well just give new Labour leadership a blank sheet of paper and invite them to tell us what the party manifesto will be.