Last week the two Eds made speeches which deal with key aspects of Labour’s economic strategy. There may have been differing views within the party of the content of these speeches including on Left Futures, not least because they have been spun in different ways to different audiences. But that isn’t the only aspect which will concern party members.
How can such important aspects of party policy be simply announced with so little reference to the party? Ed Ball’s speech in particular, defining where he stands on austerity and Keysianism, the shadow chancellor’s most important speech since that to Bloomberg, was made without any discussion whatsoever within the party’s formal policy structure or amongst MPs. Even the shadow cabinet, received only scant information in advance of the speech about its content.
On the very day that Ed Balls made his speech last week, there was a joint meeting of the three Labour policy commissions that deal with aspects of the economy, but the macroeconomic stance of the next Labour government was not on the agenda. Nor has it been on any policy commission agenda since 2010. Indeed, the topics for discussion by Labour’s national policy forum (NPF) this year were deliberately designed to exclude such “controversial” subjects.
Unfortunately, the fact that the two Eds have failed even to consult with NPF members, never mind involve them in decision-making, shows a contempt for the party’s internal democracy. They just don’t trust the members. Nor even their MPs. Members can therefore be forgiven for thinking that Labour’s policy process is a sham. But is that right?
It is enormously disappointing that Ed Miliband’s commitment to “a living breathing party” in which members had “more say in policy making” has been abandoned, or, amounting to the same, applies only to matters of his choosing and excluding the most important. But as long as the process survives, it is up to party members to use it and to demand that it make decisions on matters of our choosing.
The commitment of our leaders to internal democracy has been exposed as a sham. But the democratic process itself will only be a sham if we allow it to be so.
Source
