So finally we have the Conference papers on Partnership in Power. How will it play out in October? Some proposals have been widely trailed. The Women's Section of the NEC will be replaced by quotas. MPs will no longer be able to stand in the Constituency Section. A two-tier NEC, with less frequent full meetings and much work delegated to "lead" members and Party officers, appears confirmed. Conference will focus on papers from the National Policy Forum and the NEC. Motions may still be submitted on matters not substantively addressed in these reports, or which have arisen since their publication. But who knows how this will be interpreted? If the Forum had reported on education this year, could we have discussed the end of free student tuition? The rule giving total discretion to the Conference Arrangements Committee leaves us little wiser.
Membership of the National Policy Forum Mark II looks reasonable. But although it will be too late for the 1997 Conference to elect CLP representatives, the new Forum is expected to start work early in 1998. Will the current unaccountable members set the parameters of the rolling policy programme? More seriously, the Forum will only meet twice a year, to approve standing commissions for policy areas and to consider and amend their reports.
Real power will rest with the Policy Commissions. They will respond to resolutions and comments throughout the year, solicit views and draft reports. The Commissions will include "significant representation" from the Forum itself - as would the Joint Policy Committee - but no numbers are specified in either the rule changes or the explanatory paper. Who will fill in the blanks?
So documents may be presented to the Forum, and to Conference in the name of the Forum, without members having enough information to evaluate how faithfully they represent Party concerns. This anxiety is reinforced by the summary of evidence to LiP itself. Of 842 submissions, 44% were from CLPs, 43% from branches, and only 3% from trade unions. All subsequent figures are reported as percentages of 842. This gives a comment from a trade union with 100,000 members the same weight as a CLP with 1,000, a branch with 100, or a single individual. The only sure conclusion is that the Party is split on every aspect, with few changes supported by even half the submissions. The case for deferring PiP and seeking modernisation with consent is stronger than ever. Nevertheless, the message is "vote this through and we'll sort out the details afterwards."
Unfortunately implementation of the 1996 Conference decision on Local Policy Forums (LPFs) does not inspire trust. Composite 53 called for forums at CLP level. But in at least one region recent "pilot LPFs" bypassed CLPs completely, with the venue, timing and invitations determined by the regional office, the agenda dictated from London, and no feedback to participants. Enough delegates may buy the lie that PiP, immediately and in full, is the only alternative to chaos. Whether composites are remitted or put to the vote will depend solely on the movers, and on chance interactions in compositing meetings. Delegates may have to vote on rule changes before debating the structures which they will legitimise. The trade unions' position is not yet clear. If they could get a deal which would hold, they might be swayed. But on whom can they rely?
In 1995 Tony Blair promised to end zero-hours contracts. That commitment has gone. Guarantees of recognition recede. The unions should consider where their friends are. Constituency resolutions reaffirm the union link at all levels. Activists would not understand if they were undermined by the block vote in the service of a party machine which, increasingly, regards the unions with contempt. The unions may be tempted to switch their money and people into campaigning directly on pay and industrial issues. But they should look first at which factions would welcome a divorce. The left, and this includes many who would formerly have disclaimed the label, should take to heart the words of Clause IV: "By the strength of our common endeavour we achieve more than we achieve alone". That will remain true whatever happens in Brighton.