NEC rushes through constitutional change

At the NEC on 18 September, Gordon Brown set out his agenda and indicated that Labour’s campaigning priorities should be schools, communities and housing. He also presented his proposed constitutional changes to the function of conference and the policy making process.

NEC members generally welcomed the break with the past in having the new leader and drew out a number of particular issues. Ann Black raised concern that the broad tent could be too broad, with members being upset to see Margaret Thatcher invited into 10 Downing Street. Dennis Skinner indicated people did not necessarily believe the government’s guarantees about the Northern Rock bank and reminded the NEC that the government had lied about weapons of mass destruction. Christine Shawcroft drew attention to party members opposition to the US being allowed facilities at Menwith Hill for its National Missile Defence programme. Mary Turner, referring to the Thatcher meeting, suggested that if the party really listened to people it would stop the continual privatisation in the NHS and schools. She also raised inadequacies in the current provision for care of the elderly. Peter Willsman said the Thatcher meeting sent negative signals to the members and that a sure way to electoral defeat was to pick fights with the Labour Party and impose a public sector wage freeze. Walter Wolfgang said the troops in Iraq should not be drawn into any war with Iran and that if all the troops were withdrawn it would be a good way of showing Gordon was a decisive leader.

Gordon Brown responded to all the points raised and said it was a sign of Labour’s strength that the Lib Dems and Tories were both in disarray. On Thatcher, he noted that every Prime Minister invites their predecessors to Downing Street. On Iraq, he indicated that the policy now was to move, over a period of time, to a training role not a combat role.

Brown’s proposed constitutional changes were presented in a new paper headed ‘Extending and renewing party democracy’. He indicated that a new politics and a more participatory party was needed. He suggested that if the proposed new system did not work then there could be a review after two years, and the party could return to the present system. A key proposal in the paper is the abolition of the current system of contemporary resolutions, that are debated and voted on at each annual conference. Instead the paper proposed that party units should be allowed ‘to submit one contemporary issue, on any subject not substantially addressed through the PiP (Partnership in Power) process’. ‘Issues’ will have to be ‘ten words or less and may be supported by an explanation of why the issue should be prioritised.’

Ann Black pointed out that this new paper before the NEC had only just been given to NEC members, whilst CLP delegates to the forthcoming conference were already being rung up by party staff urging them to support the paper. Ann questioned the value of an OMOV (one member one vote) ballot on the final National Policy Forum (NPF) documents, as it would be expensive and too late in the policy making process. Michael Cashman welcomed the changes as reflecting the spirit of Neil Kinnock’s changes in the 1980s. Jeremy Beecham said he was not clear where different issues would be dealt with and was also concerned about the cost of an OMOV ballot. Christine Shawcroft said she had sent the consultation document to all members of her constituency party and held a members meeting where concern was expressed about the way NPF documents are presented in a ‘take it or leave it’ manner, with no mechanism to amend them. Diane Hayter said it was good to move from resolutions to ‘issues’.

Peter Willsman regarded the paper as a step back as it downgraded conference sovereignty. He was alarmed that it proposed that the NPF would be electing people directly to the Conference Arrangements Committee (CAC), taking away the latter’s direct link to conference and weakening the unions role in the CAC. He pointed out that the current CAC already rules out of order more than half the contemporary resolutions and that retaining a requirement for ‘issues’ to be contemporary would continue the current problems. Pat McFadden, chair of the NPF, said the current system of contemporary resolutions added nothing to the policy making system, just showing weakness and division, because a resolution would be passed and ministers then said they were going to ignore it — he could see no point having such resolutions. Norma Stephenson indicated she would abstain on any vote that day, having only had the paper for a matter of minutes. Walter Wolfgang said the majority in the party and the country believed the Labour Party had not got a democratic structure and these proposals would increase that cynicism. Contemporary resolutions provided a safety valve for the party and allow an element of input from trade unions and CLPs. He suggested that the proposals not be rushed to this year’s conference and that an NEC sub committee should look into the issues.

Mary Turner pointed out that resolutions have been agreed by conference on housing, pensions, privatisation of public services and so on but conference was not being listened to.

Gordon Brown said the proposals were a principled set of changes and that they had to do more to link up with local members and communities. He said that there will still be a ballot on which ‘contemporary issues’ to discuss and that the ‘issue’ would be moved and seconded, but not voted on. A separate vote of the conference would then determine whether to refer the ‘issue’ to the NPF. Gordon Brown claimed there had been consultation on the proposals so he did not want to set up a sub committee to look at them.

Ann Black raised a point of order that the meeting should take separate votes on the different parts of the paper, but NEC chair, Mike Griffiths insisted on taking the entire paper as a whole. The vote was taken with five voting against and 22 in favour. The paper is to be voted on at the conference.