Ann Black makes a call to retrieve democratic processes to save Labour
Labour’s missions call for a decade of national renewal to repair the damage of 14 Tory years. But winning again is not guaranteed: it depends on keeping in touch with members and, through them, the voters. Instead, the party is still failing to communicate effectively, on organisation or on policy. Membership is probably between 200,000 and 300,000, above the level between 2005 and 2014 but down from the 2020 peak of 553,000 and heading south. This needs fixing, and fast.
The 2024 election tested loyalties severely. After two snap elections, local parties expected to choose their own candidates in good time. Instead, NEC panels longlisted for “battleground” seats, excluding some local favourites. Then NEC-led panels, advised by regional officers, imposed shortlists on all other constituencies, most with only one candidate. Finally, six serving NEC members were dropped into safe seats when sitting MPs quit at the last minute. In 2009, when I chaired the NEC, only one candidate was imposed in the whole of the UK. Fifteen years on, it has become the norm. Next time must be different.
The process also suffered repeated delays. Some were unavoidable: selections had to wait for new boundaries, must-win by-elections took precedence, and the Rochdale episode led to more intensive due diligence checks. But local parties and applicants should have been kept informed, instead of getting their news from social media and the grapevine.
In the campaign itself, members were rightly urged to work in battleground seats but wrongly prevented from doing anything if they were unable or unwilling to travel. This undermined motivation and ate into Labour’s vote in the county elections. Again, there was little communication about the strategy, or even snappy doorstep slogans, just daily demands for donations, and more sticks than carrots.
Nevertheless, members are a forgiving bunch and were delighted with the results. Many had Labour MPs for the first time and looked forward to a transformative Labour government. Unfortunately, within weeks, the chancellor removed winter fuel payments from all pensioners paid more than £11,500. Activists knew this was losing votes and councillors from the first day, but it took ten months, and the May 2025 elections, to bring the inevitable U-turn. Labour cannot afford to repeat this by ignoring warnings about disability benefit cuts or rising child poverty.
And there has been little effort to set positive narratives. Good things – scrapping Rwanda, breakfast clubs, more GP appointments, the minimum wage, settling strikes – are not promoted. Contentious decisions – Heathrow, farmers’ inheritance tax, employers’ national insurance – are not explained. Some announcements, including disability benefit changes, international aid cuts, language on migration, attitudes to war in the Middle East and keeping the two-child benefit cap, lead members to feel that the party is leaving them.
Labour could have learned from its own history. Back in 1997, the National Policy Forum (NPF) was established, as Partnership in Power, to keep the government and party in tune and avoid the breakdowns of the 1970s. Its roles were to review all policy areas between one general election and the next, and to maintain daily communication between Westminster and the grassroots. These were tested in Tony Blair’s first year when, like Keir Starmer, he faced a crisis over welfare, with 47 Labour MPs voting against cuts to single-parent benefits and 100 abstaining. In response, the NPF launched an immediate consultation on welfare reform as a first-year priority. He recognised that success needed more than keeping MPs in line: the arguments had to be won among the wider movement.
As now, detailed work was carried out by policy commissions within the NPF, each shadowing several ministries, but back then, all NPF members contributed to all papers, meeting in person twice a year. Activity diminished in opposition, and there were no meetings between February 2018 and July 2023. However, Angela Eagle, NPF chair from 2012 to 2016, maintained a sense of collective endeavour through a website which allowed anyone to contribute, read and comment freely. As she wrote: “It is only through a transparent and accessible system that our debate will be invigorated and ultimately lead to a policy programme which commands the support of the British public.”
In 2024, this communal space disappeared, without NEC’s knowledge or consent. Submissions are now seen only by policy staff and members of the relevant commission, so I can read what contributors say about education and social security, but not what they think about health or defence. NPF representatives and local parties cannot contact each other, and members now see nothing. And consultation papers tend to focus on narrow topics at the expense of the defining issues, which will decide the next election. Unless the NPF opens up again to all stakeholders, they will drift away, taking their wisdom and experience and putting the second term at risk. There is still time to change.