Following on from yesterday’s article on the problems with Labour’s policymaking process, David Pavett comments on two of the new National Policy Forum documents

Britain in the World Consultation Report

The report follows the formula of (1) Introduction, (2) Questions, (3) Context and (4) The future under Labour. Section 1 gives information about the NPF process. And 2 consists of highly generalised questions. The comments below are based on sections 3 and 4.

Positive aspects

The report makes some valid background points, for example about trade agreements (or the lack of them) with countries such as Australia and India, but it was difficult to see anything else that could be described as “positive” in terms of developing Labour Policy from what it is now.

Negative aspects

Firstly, the criticisms of the Government’s failings on trade are weak and invite obvious come-backs. Thus it is said that “the Conservatives promised that 80% of Britain’s trade would be covered by the end of 2022, yet they have now missed their own deadline.” But the all-important question is “By how much?” and this is not considered.

Secondly, it is virtually impossible to tell what is being proposed as a new policy development in this report. Of the 16 paragraphs in this section, none of them clearly state any new proposals. In paragraph two, we read “Negotiating an independent trading policy will be a significant challenge…” We get that, but the issue is: what is Labour’s response to that challenge?

Paragraph three informs us that “The Labour Party has already set out a clear plan to make Britain and its people better off…” Good, but that is not a policy development.

In paragraph three we have “the Labour Party has the opportunity to develop a comprehensive trade policy that puts Labour values into action.” Again, good, but what is being proposed?

The whole of this section continues in the same vein. It is all statements of existing policy and statements about policy that Labour intends to develop. There are no actual proposals for members to consider.

Suggestions:

It is astonishing that in a world torn by so many difference crises – energy, wars in Syria, Israel-Palestine, Ukraine, international environmental degradation, financial, cost of living, migration, refugees, water management – that Labour can produce a consultation paper on Britain in the world that doesn’t mention any of them.

Our suggestion is that this paper should be rejected as not fit for purpose and the Britain in the World Commission should be told to go away and do some proper research and thinking in order to make some genuine proposals for the international problems we face.

If it is said in response that this year’s paper was designed to be on our trade policies, with the implication that these pressing crises can be ignored, then that would be a demonstration of political scleroses that no political party should want to put on display.

And finally, even if we did restrict ourselves to trade policy, nothing substantive is proposed for members to consider.

This report is not fit for purpose.

The Green & Digital Commission Consultation Report

The report follows the same formula as the previous one and again we have focused on sections 3 and 4.

Positive aspects

It’s good to have information about the four-year cycle of NPF reports of which this is the fourth, with a writing style that is accessible. It’s also good to have it reaffirmed that Labour would take the railways back into public ownership.

Some well known telling points about Tory failure are repeated. The proposal to increase R&D spending to 3% of GDP is positive, although some detail would have been welcome.

Negative aspects

The positives are outweighed by the negatives. The idea of a “digital economy” is very unclear. What does it include/exclude? Moreover, much of what is dealt with has no essential connection with digital electronics. What about analogue electronics? Is that not also important? “Digital” here is just a buzzword.

“Low growth” is used to refer to an economy which it is said hasn’t grown for 13 years Shouldn’t that be “zero growth”? The same point applies for “weak growth”.

It is asserted the Conservatives have “broken their own fiscal rules eleven times” with no reference or indication as to what this is about. Are we all supposed to know about that?

The UK is said to have a “poor digital infrastructure”. Compared to what? By what standards?

The Ukraine invasion is said to have “exposed just how insecure the UK’s energy system has become”. How is that? We only get 5% of our energy supply from the Ukraine. The real problem is the functioning of the profit-based world energy market.

There is an incomprehensible claim that Labour would ensure that digital systems are safe, trustworthy and reliable. How?

What is Britain’s “adequacy status with the EU”? Are we all supposed to know about that?

Without explanation no credence can be given to the claim that a “Labour government would address the huge power some digital platforms have over consumers and workers”.

The pollution from vehicles is not only about carbon but also about particles. These will continue to be emitted from electric vehicles (tyres, brakes, clutch plates).

“Labour will develop more active travel options including walking.” Without development, this idea is open to satire.

There is no chance that our national power system could be “clean” by 2030 as claimed. Labour’s mission to “harness data for public good” has no clear meaning. Labour’s mission of “caring for the future” is meaningless rhetoric.

Suggestions:

The sort of verbiage and meaningless rhetoric indicated above should be cut out. Labour needs to start by getting its own use of IT in order, including using its website to make Labour policies easily available to its members and the general public.

The document needs to clearly indicate when something new is being proposed as opposed to repeating current policy or saying things with no clear policy implications. When you have nothing to say it is best to say nothing. Even better, do the work necessary to have something to say.

David Pavett is a retired science teacher and a member of Brentford & Isleworth CLP