Submission to the consultation on Extending and Renewing Party Democracy by Tim Horton (Research Director, Fabian Society) and Sunder Katwala (General Secretary, Fabian Society)

1. Introduction

1.1 Under new leadership, the Labour Party has a once in a generation chance to reform its culture and organisation. There have of course been a wide variety of proposals for reform from across the Party, often motivated by different objectives. We believe the test of reform should be whether it strengthens Labour's ability to bring about progressive social change – through electoral success, through shaping a progressive consensus amongst the public and through encouraging active participation in politics.

1.2 This submission presents evidence which supports the NEC proposals, as initial steps in the right direction. However, we also argue that more radical reform will be needed both to improve Labour's policymaking process and to enable the Party to reconnect to communities and new sources of campaigning support.

1.3 This note draws upon research carried out for the Fabian Society, as part of a year-long investigation on political parties and party reform, setting out evidence and analysis relevant to the current consultation. In addition to desk research and interviews, the research included polling carried out for the Fabian Society by YouGov in April 2007 of both current Labour Party members, and of Labour identifiers who are not party members but are politically engaged in non-party activities.

1.4 This research project has resulted in the publication of the Fabian pamphlet Facing Out: How political parties must change to build a progressive society, by Tim Horton, Jessica Studdert and David Pinto-Duchinsky (Fabian Society, 2007). As with all Fabian Society publications, the content of this submission and of the pamphlet are solely the responsibility of their respective authors: the collective responsibility of the Society is simply to approve its publications as worthy of debate within the Labour movement and beyond.

2. Giving members more of a say

2.1 Our research demonstrates that many members currently don't feel listened to – and that increasing the voice of party members should be a key priority. The Fabian/YouGov poll found that nearly half - 41% - of existing members feel that the party does not listen much or at all to what they think, while a slim majority (54%) do feel that their views are taken into account.

2.2 To investigate further, we compared the experiences of party members with members and supporters of progressive NGOs. We found that NGO members feel considerably more effective, more valued by the organisation, and more listened to when making policy than Labour Party members.

(The figures give those agreeing and disagreeing among both NGO and party members, and the difference between the net score for each group).

My membership has contributed to organisation's ability to achieve aims

NGO members: + 73 (81% - 8%)

Labour members: + 39 (62% - 23%)

NGO 'advantage' over party members: + 34

I feel recognised and valued by organisation and other members

NGO members: (74% - 11%) + 63

Labour members: (52% - 31%) +21

NGO advantage: + 42

I have power to influence organisation's position on specific issues

NGO members: - 46 (25% - 71%)

Labour members: -39 (28% - 67%)

NGO advantage: - 7

The organisation listens to my views when deciding position on specific issues

NGO members: + 61 (73% -12%)

Labour members: + 13 (54% - 41%)

NGO advantage: + 48

2.3 It should be an important wake-up call for the Labour Party that so many party members do not feel that their voice counts, and that members of campaigning pressure groups feel more valued, more effective and more listened to by their organisations than the members of a democratic political party. This is despite the fact that many campaigning groups operate in a relatively undemocratic way and do not actually give their members any genuine role in deciding organisational objectives and policies.

2.4 Of course, political parties have a much harder job than NGOs. Unlike parties, advocacy groups never have to present tough choices, aggregate views, make compromises or take difficult and unpopular decisions. So it is no wonder that political parties find it more difficult to emulate the feel-good factor of NGOs for their members. But we believe that Labour could and should be doing much better than it is. Labour clearly has to work harder at making members feel engaged and valued.

2.5 Indeed, there is a very significant positive difference where Labour members do feel listened to. As the table below shows, among these party members (representing 54% of the total), morale and perceived effectiveness does mirror that of NGO activists. This suggests that increasing members' voice could have an important positive impact on participation.

My membership has contributed to organisation's ability to achieve aims

NGO members: +73

Lab members who feel listened to: +72

Lab members who don't feel listened to: :+12

I feel recognised and valued by organisation and other members

NGO members: +63

Lab members who feel listened to: +64

Lab members who don't feel listened to: : -26

3. Why voice, not power, is key

3.1 As can be seen from the first table, the Fabian/YouGov polling showed that NGO activists feel more effective and more valued than Party members do despite feeling less empowered in decision-making. This undermines the claim that giving members more power is the key to improving morale. Rather, the figures point to the importance of voice.

3.2 This suggests that the key to effective reform that makes members feel more engaged will be increasing opportunities for member voice, rather than on changing power relations within the Party. Gordon Brown must show members their views are listened to.

3.3 This conclusion is supported by interviews we conducted with senior NGO membership and campaigns staff, who attributed their success to a strategy of soliciting members' opinions on issues and providing feedback on how contributions had been influential.

4. Implications for consultation proposals (proposals 1–3)

4.1 So we support strengthening the NPF as a central focus of reform of the Party's policymaking system, to provide more opportunities to enable members to make their views heard, and to ensure that the system has credibility is demonstrating how members' views are being taken into account.

However, a central factor in achieving this will be a significant step change in the level of engagement with the NPF by government ministers. This needs to be about more than better communication; members should be offered genuine opportunities for input at the planning stage. Ministers need to take part in a dialogue about future policy options, not a party briefing on fixed government policy. This should be routine in ministers' long-term policy planning and determining future priorities for public spending.

NEC proposals

Proposal 1 A commitment to give greater support to local Labour Parties in holding policy forums and creating a duty on the NPF to better consult, engage and involve all party members in policy discussions

Proposal 2 Strengthen the NPF with a regular work plan and meeting schedule, an open and constant dialogue with ministers, and greater feedback to party members and stakeholders

Proposal 3 The JPC to take on an enhanced executive function in relation to the operation of the NPF and PiP process

Comments: We support these proposals as positive changes to improve the NPF as a deliberative policymaking forum. However, the key to strengthening the NPF while Labour is in government depends on securing a substantive and consistent level of engagement from Ministers. While there is widespread acknowledgement that a deliberative system is better in principle than an adversarial, resolutionary system, there has been a delivery and credibility gap for too many members during the last decade of the Partnership in Power process. The test of reform will be closing this.

The consultation document proposes creating duties on the NPF and local parties to engage with party members and their communities. Given the commitment in the document to an open and constant dialogue with Ministers, this should be strengthened and symbolised by creating a parallel duty on Labour Ministers to consult and engage with the NPF on future policy, and to report back on how these discussions are subsequently reflected in policy decisions. This should extend to all departmental ministers, regardless of whether they are members of the NPF or its policy commissions.

5. The importance of deliberation in policymaking

5.1 The debate about voice and power goes to the heart of a recurrent controversy in internal Labour party debates.

5.2 Member voice and member power need not be 'either – or'. But what is crucial is to understand the distinction between the processes of democratic ownership of policy, on the one hand, and deliberative decision-making on specific issues, on the other.

5.3 As well as their role in electing leaders and candidates for office, it is of course right that members and affiliates have formal 'ownership' of Labour's policy platform – through having the right to vote on the Party programme (whether directly, or through delegated voting). Formulating policy responsibly, on the other hand, requires a deliberative process, which forces different groups to recognise each other's interests and which attempts to reconcile these different interests and reach consensus – not simply the insistent articulation of different positions followed by 'yes-no' voting decisions.

5.4 The contemporary resolution process conflates and confuses these roles – mixing up the process of resolving individual policy disagreements, with the democratic mechanism for endorsing or rejecting the outcome.

Compositing and voting on competing resolutions in an adversarial setting is not an effective or responsible way to make policy decisions, aggregate different positions, or resolve conflicts. This is one reason why the outcomes of such votes have brought little influence in practice throughout the Party's history.

6. The role of party conference: sacred myths

6.1 The authority of Party conference to determine policy on contemporary issues via resolutions has always been a myth. Richard Crossman's description of Labour's decision-making process was: "the concession in principle of sovereign powers to the delegates at the Annual Conference, and the removal in practice of most of this sovereignty through the trade union block vote on the one hand, and the complete independence of the Parliamentary Labour Party on the other." (Richard Crossman, 'Foreword', in The English Constitution, Bagehot,1963)

6.2 It is sometimes implied that tensions between resolutions passed at conference and the policy of the parliamentary party are a recent development of the New Labour era. But of course these tensions go right back to the formation of the Labour Party in 1906. The first leader to clash with conference over its role was not Tony Blair, but Keir Hardie.

As Labour's first leader, Hardie placed much emphasis on winning the argument that conference could not mandate and bind the parliamentary party at the 1907 party conference. He saw this as a point of general principle, winning conference's support on this, while also insisting on this over the specific issue of Labour's strategy on votes for women. Hardie's biographer Kenneth Morgan describes the 1907 conference thus: "The first crisis came with the issue of the role of conference itself. A motion was introduced to try to force the parliamentary party to act as the mouthpiece for resolutions passed at the party conference. Hardie, as leader, took a firm line, supported by Henderson and all the leading figures in the party. The parliamentary party should regard the resolutions passed by the conference as 'opinions only … Hardie's argument [on women's votes] was entirely consistent with his previous position – what later became passed down as 'the 1907 formula', that party conferences could not bind the party in parliament. Labour leaders from Ramsay MacDonald to Harold Wilson continued to treat conference decisions as statements of opinion, but not as mandates." (Kenneth Morgan, Keir Hardie: Radical and Socialist, 1975)

6.3 Everybody in the Party knows that this is how things have always worked in practice: with effective authority over contemporary policy issues resting with the parliamentary party and the elected leadership, while the extra-parliamentary party exerts a significant (and usually beneficial) influence through pressure politics.

So members' influence comes through voice and pressure, not through anybody mandating anyone else to do anything. That is simply not how government or politics work.

6.4 That member influence comes through voice and pressure is a key reason why the NPF has been a massive improvement on what went before: it is precisely because its rolling programme and deliberative nature makes it a better vehicle for pressure politics that the NPF affords members much better prospects for influence than a resolutionary system. To take an example, a key reason why Labour's policy on improving pensions for women and carers is more radical than the Turner Commission proposed is partly because this issue had repeatedly been raised – and so ministers had been forced to address it – through the NPF.

6.5 Those who still cling to the myth that we do – or should – make policy by mandating ministers to do things through resolutions will naturally conclude that things will improve if only we give conference delegates more powers, or if we can somehow ensure ministers are held to resolutions agreed at conference. But this approach focuses energy on what is, for the reasons set out above, a necessarily uninfluential process. It also fails to recognise that it is the false status of the contemporary resolutions process that undermines morale.

7. The Party programme – the case for a 'Clause five' debate.

7.1 Our argument is that members should have a stronger voice in future policy debates, by strengthening the party's deliberative policymaking through the NPF. In this respect, it is important that an OMOV ballot – symbolising members' ownership of the programme – should supplement, not substitute for, this deliberative process.

7.2 Giving members a more effective voice in the policymaking process is essential, but achieving this will depend on an honest recognition of the ways in which members do influence policy – and the ways in which they don't. We believe that reform will be successful in the long term only if the Party undertakes a deeper debate about its culture and organisation, and the mechanisms through which members and affiliates actually influence policy.

7.3 When the Labour Party reformed Clause IV, this was not just about updating the party's aims and values. It was also about being honest about something which everybody already knew to be the case - that the Party was no longer committed to nationalisation as an end in itself. This made it less likely that the party would be accused of 'betrayal' for not doing something which was never going to happen.

7.4 We therefore agree with the proposed reforms to the contemporary issues process. But they do not go far enough. In some respects they merely formalise what already happens – that the outputs of conference debate are referred to NPF policy commissions for discussion.

One hundred years on from Labour's 1907 conference, we believe we now need an equally frank debate about the making of the Party programme, one which explicitly recognises what we all know to be the case: that members' and affiliates' policy influence on contemporary issues comes from participation in deliberative discussions, rather than through constitutionally-imparted voting rights.

Members can and should have more of a voice. But it will only work if we all grow up.

7.5 What's more, the myth of conference sovereignty means that Labour risks promising a level of member control which can never be delivered in practice. We believe it is the false status of the current contemporary resolutions process that makes it highly demoralising for participants and observers alike. Honestly aligning expectations and reality would therefore be an important step in increasing morale.

It is of course important that the Party should continue to discuss and debate controversial issues at conference. But in our view, the Party would be better placed to hold open and honest debates about difficult issues, in which disagreements can be expressed, without the stage-managed confrontations which result from the idea that this is the process by which Labour decides on major policy issues.

8. Implications for consultation proposals (proposals 4-6)

NEC proposals

Proposal 4 Annual Conference to be given a more substantive role in directing and monitoring the work of the NPF

Proposal 5 A new contemporary issues process through which party units would be able to submit issues, following proper

consultation, for consideration in the priorities ballot at Annual Conference. Each issue that succeeds in the ballot will be debated at Conference and be included in a work programme in the relevant policy commission.

Proposal 6 The final policy documents agreed by the NPF will be the subject of an OMOV ballot

Comments (Proposal 6) An OMOV ballot would symbolise the right of party members to agree the policy programme and could widen the sense of ownership of policy, as well as being a useful external signal of party support for the policy programme.

However, this will be effective only if the large-scale final ballot complements a stronger deliberative process, in which party members are fully engaged. If the ballot were to instead be viewed as a substitute for deliberative decision-making, this would risk weakening member participation, voice and influence.

(Proposals 4 & 5) The evidence presented here leads us to strongly support the move away from the contemporary resolutions process at annual conference, suggested in proposals 4 and 5.

However, we would advocate that reform should go further. The Party should begin a deeper debate about the making of its programme. This should lead to reforms to Clause V of the Party constitution, to set out clearly how and where members influence party policy-making.

9. Reconnecting with local communities

9.1 Reform must not focus solely on those already within the Party and Labour movement.

The consultation rightly notes the increase in non-party political activism and asks how we can turn outwards and draw those who share our values but not our Party into our work. Renewing Labour as an active campaigning force depends on finding effective ways to involve more people in Labour politics. A reform process which considers only the views and interests of current members and activists misses the point: the voice of those the Party would like to engage should be heard in reform debates too.

9.2 The Fabian party reform research polled the group of people who we think are most likely to get involved – those who are Labour identifiers and politically active outside party politics (through NGOs or other civic activity, e.g. school governors) but who have never been Party members.

9.3 Most of this group were not interested in party membership – but large numbers were interested in engaging with Labour if offered the right opportunities to do so:

9.4 Note that we applied a restrictive definition of this group (drawing on Labour identifiers involved in just 12 large progressive NGOs, or engaged in a constrained set of civic activities).

Even on this basis, YouGov calculates that this group of Labour identifiers who are active outside party politics contains approximately 2.5 million people nationally. So the 64% willing to support local Labour campaigns corresponds to a pool of 1.7 million people. And applying a wider definition of NGO membership or civic activism would more than double this pool of potential participants.

9.5 So the message for Gordon Brown is that there are many out there who are potentially willing to get involved with Labour, but are not attracted by the prospect of becoming a card-carrying member. If Labour fails to find effective ways to involve those who want to join in without signing up, it would potentially be turning away from a chance to harness the energy and activism of millions of progressive campaigners who would like a stronger relationship with Labour short of party membership.

10. Engaging the wider public

10.1 In a world where signing a petition is the only thing that many are willing to do to express their views, political parties are going to have to learn to lower the barrier to involvement, and value each level of contribution for its own worth.

10.2 Labour has begun to respond to the need to involve non-members with the creation of the Labour Supporters Network (LSN). This is a step in the right direction, but it has not been clear enough as to what its objectives are. It risks seeming to be a one-level 'membership light' option, which primarily leads to those who sign up receiving information from government.

There will need to be greater clarity about what is being offered to new participants for this to be effective. As our polling shows, different types of participation will be attractive to different individuals and groups. Many people are attracted by specific issue-based campaigning at national or local level, rather than by the offer of a formal institutional relationship like membership or supporter status.

10.3 There will be important political challenges in trying both to engage current members more effectively and to reach out to non-party members, with many members worried that the involvement of wider groups may dilute their own membership status.

So it must be made explicit that the constitutional rights and roles of membership should reside only with 'full' members.

10.4 We believe the solution to this problem is to create a new Party structure – an 'engagement arm' – which sits outside constitutionally defined relationships, through which Labour can deliver the events and offer the forums for debate that a more flexible model of participation demands.

This would consist of a set of porous networks, along with both locally and nationally organised events, campaigns and other activities, open to those not wanting full membership as well as to members. We would propose a dedicated unit within party HQ for facilitating these activities (rather than them being an add-on to party policymaking). Often this would support local activity, for example in helping local parties get speakers and organise events, and helping to link up local parties with unions, socialist societies and other campaigning groups. But this could also involve local and regional organisers delivering events, alongside other local activity.

10.5 The non-constitutional status of these activities would prevent wider involvement diluting the rights of members. It would also avoid a programme of engagement being subject to the kind of cumbersome internal bargaining processes that often hamper the Party's ability to engage others – for example, allowing the Party to produce professional literature that has not been mangled by democratic amendment processes.

11. Implications for consultation proposals (proposal 7)

NEC proposals

Proposal 7 To place a duty on, and give more support to, local parties and Labour Groups to consult and engage their communities

Comments The consultation document considers engagement mainly in the context of drawing the wider public into the policymaking process. Our polling suggests involving non-members in policy consultation is a viable vehicle for engagement (49% of those non-members polled said they would probably or definitely be willing to take part in Labour events or debates provided they didn't have to sign up for anything).

On the other hand, further polling confirmed that progressive non-members were even more attracted by other activities: many expressed a preference to be involved in campaigning or working on projects in the local community.

We support this proposal, but believe this duty (and support) should go beyond simply involving communities in policy consultation, to requiring local parties to involve communities in campaigning and direct action – and to see these activities as a core part of their functioning, not just an add-on to normal GC-led activity.

12. Creating a more plural party: political challenges

12.1 The party's internal reform debates have too often been framed as a zero-sum trade-off between the role and powers of 'leaders' and 'members' – with an apparent choice between strong leadership, to ensure electoral success, or a strong grassroots approach, for democratic legitimacy.

At one extreme of this spectrum sits a view of the party that what we would call a 'top-down monolith' – a vision of a 'virtual party' without members, with a quiescent network of supporters used to provide legitimacy in a dissent-free atmosphere. At the other extreme sits a model that we would describe as a 'bottom-up monolith' – an equally rigid structure in which the most energetic activist group (whose politics tend to be of a particular kind) formulate policy through a resolutionary system, with the results transmitted upwards to leaders simply awaiting these instructions. Both are monolithic in the sense that the proponents of each tend to be motivated by the assertion of one policy perspective over another – and so aspects of diversity that threaten this are therefore unwelcome, whether it be the strangulation of debate at the top, or the exclusion of wider groups of people from deliberation at the bottom.

12.2 We believe the key to renewing the Party will be creating a more pluralistic culture, with recognition that both strong leadership and strong grassroots participation are important to success.

12.3 There will be cultural challenges for all parts of the Party here. The challenge for the leadership will be to become more comfortable with a plurality of voice and opinion at all levels within the Party than has been the case over the past decade. The new leadership needs to demonstrate that it is genuinely willing to open up and give members more of a say. This means a willingness to engage, to listen and to kick some of the control freak habits of recent years.

In particular, it means an acceptance that a democratic party contains different views, and an openness to dialogue and sometimes disagreement. Particularly in instances where ministers are prevented by the constraints of office from giving voice to instincts that many members share, Labour could make far better use key voices within and around the Party – such as the PLP Chair or the NPF vice-chairs and policy commission chairs – to articulate these instincts and reassure key constituencies.

12.4 Indeed, the Party leadership should recognise that pluralism can be a real benefit if allowed to flourish in the right way. A potential disadvantage of the classic moderniser vision of a rigidly unified party, all 'on message', is that it can tie the Party's identity too closely to specific policy decisions on which there may be real disagreement within the movement and public. On an issue like nuclear power, for example, where it is difficult to relate particular preferences to Labour's underlying philosophy, the public should see there are voices in the Party both for and against.

12.5 Members and activists will face big cultural challenges too. In particular, attempts to diversify the modes of participation the Party offers beyond membership will present Labour with a significant challenge. It will of course require the buy-in of everyone in the Party to work.

But some activists see such reform as a cynical attempt by the leadership to dilute the power of 'real' members, and they remain stubbornly wedded to the traditional forms of organisation and participation that the Party offers. In their recent party reform pamphlet, for example, Jon Cruddas and John Harris argue that the Supporters' Network is "a systematic assault on Labour's basic federal structure" and that 'blurring' the definition of local parties (through the involvement of supporters) "will only serve to hamper their work".

These arguments are no doubt made in good faith, but they present an important barrier to the Party's ability to transform its relationship with a new generation of potential participants. In essence, the 'members-supporters' debate today is simply the extension of the 'activists-members' debate of the 1980s and 1990s, with a core group of activists wary about the involvement of wider groups and opinions.

12.6 This 'protectionist tendency' needs to be challenged. Drawing non-members into Labour's work within a more flexible model of participation will mean winning an internal argument, facing down those activist voices who seem to want a less plural and diverse party.

No football club would be open only to season ticket holders. Other loyal supporters, and even fair-weather friends can bring valuable benefits: influencing their peers, acting as sounding boards and providing wider legitimacy. Ultimately, activists will also need to be comfortable with pluralism within the party – both the involvement of wider groups of people and valuing different shades of opinion, with no-one claiming the exclusive right to the 'Labour' perspective.

12.7 In conclusion, we need a new ethos within the Party: from the leadership and central Party, a recognition of the need for more voice for members and acceptance of a more pluralistic culture; and from members, a realistic understanding that the leadership needs flexibility and an acceptance of the involvement of non-members. It will not be easy, but if we can make it work, it offers a chance for the Labour Party to rise to the very real challenges it faces today.