This is the fourth and final article in my series around the Refounding Labour consultation fronted by Peter Hain. Contribute here – closes 24 June.

Labour made great leaps forward during the 1990s, changing the basis of member involvement. Since then it has shown a marked lack of confidence in following through its own logic. If Labour is to have much of a future it needs to stop telling its members what to think and start teaching them how to think. That means UK Labour engaging with its members and local Labour opening up to its communities.

It’s nice to be asked

In return for a membership subscription, Labour members, as well as the privilege of being bored silly at meetings and enduring endless appeals to spend their life knocking on doors, get the right to vote in the election of Labour Leader and Deputy Leader, National Executive Committee members, for a few other internal positions, in the selection of candidates for parliaments and, if they attend frequently tragic branch meetings, for local authority candidates and the delegate structures of the local party. Labour follows the premise that democracy means we elect our leaders and they make decisions.

That this was a step forward from the past only goes to show just how bad it was back then when the only right of an individual member was the slow brain death inflicted cell by cell listening to the latest councillor’s report on the finer point of licencing sub-committee.

Maybe back in the day this was the best that could be offered. Back then the delegates knew best.

Actually the ‘delegates’ were frequently a bunch of highly organised, theologically motivate loonies with no mates and bad acne whose idea of a good time was a glass of coke at a Marx reading circle. The system of delegate democracy and affiliation by phantom battalions of this that and the other organisation meant the forces of sanity spent as much time preventing the asylum being overrun at they did fighting those good old Tories. It made it easier for small groups to amplify their influence.

Labour’s power that be clearly intend the current management system of constituency organisations to bite the dust and I, speaking as a representative of a phantom battalion, won’t mourn its passing. But the idea that the involvement of Labour members will be greatly enhance by replacing delegate structures with all-member gatherings is somewhat naïve. However the tools do exist to enhance the involvement of today’s Labour member. Whether the political will really exists to use them effectively is another matter.

Rarely, if ever, does the Party seek the views of its members on policy questions or issues of party management. Member engagement would be improved at a stroke by resolving important policy questions through all member referenda. When Labour sends out ballot papers to its members it is perfectly possible at minimal extra cost to consult or poll members on policy and internal matters. It has proved highly practical and, presumably cost effective, to send regular emails to members inviting donations. If so it is also possible to use these channels to provide valuable feedback to the leadership on issues of the day. There just isn’t any longer any excuse for the leadership of the party not knowing what the membership thinks.

It is hard to find a logical or practical argument against any of this. The real question is does the political will to make it happen exist. Delve deeper and the reservation of the less enlightened members is the fear that the members will ‘get it wrong’. In other words a political fix is easier than having confidence in your argument.

There are numerous examples of where membership has been lost or alienated by decisions taken at ‘the top’. Tough decisions are a fact of political life. Indeed it’s tough at ‘the top’. But had ‘the top’ been able or willing to consult Labour members, dissenting individuals may have felt more able to remain with Labour having had the opportunity to express their views on key questions. I suspect that more often than not the leadership would get its argument across, particularly if it used its feedback properly. Every democrat accepts the notion of being in a minority from time to time, or even frequently, but they won’t mind so much if they have had the chance to be in a minority!

Be where the people are

I hear a lot about ‘community organising’. Some of it is common sense, some of it the best politicians have been practicing for years, much of it well-meaning waffle.

For a political party to campaign, recruit and to make policy effectively it needs to be where the people are.

This doesn’t just mean ‘physically’, but also ‘virtually’, politically and identifiably. In far too many respects political parties generally, in fact most ‘politicians’, have been ‘other’ – not with the people, not of the people.

Presence at mass events – festivals, community gatherings, sporting events, student events or charitable functions has a value. Presence at small scale local events has a value. Being seen to be seen to be at and take part in events on the terms of those events and with relevance to the audience is useful politics.

Labour, however, seems to struggle to come to terms with the fact that many people do not want to engage with ‘horizontal’ political organisations but are willing to engage with ‘vertical’ campaigns – what used to be patronisingly called ‘single issues’. A successful modern political party will equip its members to engage in ‘vertical’ politics, in order to see its priorities reflected in broadly-based social movements. This means ditching what some used to call ‘party chauvinism’ – the blatantly daft idea that unless it was under a Labour flag it could not be supported. Labour can’t any longer afford to waste its efforts in futile attempts to replicate the work of broadly based organisations. The most effective opposition to the last Labour government came from organisations that may have been full of Conservatives, but which were not polluted by the toxic Tory brand.

Increasingly, these forms of mass activity take place online, but in local communities too restoring confidence in politics must similarly be an ‘organic’ presence and, if it is to be taken seriously, should engage on questions and in ways that are not necessarily political. The important element is to be part of the community and to demonstrate that politicians put something back because thought it is undoubtedly the case that the vast majority of politicians put a great deal back, sadly that’s not the public view and there are no shortcuts to regaining confidence.

Being ‘where the people are’ is not so much ‘Labour working FOR you’ as ‘Labour working WITH you’.

Open up -there is nothing to lose

A successful policy making process will develop a programme that can be a platform for electoral success, that confronts the big challenges facing society and that reflects the concerns of the people.

Policy is made in tortuous processes. Nationally and locally we still tend to do things in splendid isolation. The only real difference is the rooms are now smoke free.

Where policy processes have opened up they may have involved more members but it really has only really succeeded in opening the process to the wider party. There is nothing wrong with Labour’s National Policy Forum as a deliberative body – parties need their parliaments too, there is nothing wrong with similar deliberations at local level among members – we should expect nothing less. The real issue is that policy is formed in a vacuum from the real world serves parties badly and fails to engage the people it hopes to benefit.

Why should a group of party members of no particular experience produce informed policy on anything? Why should party activists have a monopoly of good ideas? If effective politics is about community engagement should an effective party not utilise the external expertise of user, interest, third sector and community groups? Think tanks have their place but alongside something that anchors ideas in practical reality and engaging with some people who might not actually agree with every word Labour utters might well do the Party a lot of good.

There is a lot to be gained by taking a ‘Royal Commission’ or ‘Community Enquiry’ approach to policy making and extending the approach into public policy through using the approach in local authorities. Used effectively it could be an important part of regaining public confidence and being seen as credible and constructive while in opposition.

And finally…

There is much to be said for the content of this consultation. In places it is strong on analysis and short on solutions. It fails to address some of the obvious abuses of process that dogged recent contests – such as the ridiculous notion of ballot papers arriving along with a piece of paper telling the recipients how they should vote. But until a better vehicle emerges reforming Labour will remain a priority of anyone in England serious about progressive politics.

Thanks for reading.