Main menu:
Our newsletters
This is the latest edition of our regular newsletter. There was a special one-day NPF meeting in London recently, which was organised after pressure from Simon Burgess- he explains more below. Apart from workshops, there was a special session on Trident. This is our report.
A SPECIAL NPF MEETING
BY SIMON BURGESS
We all know what a tight financial situation the party is in at the moment. We can't though afford for the party’s democratic structures to suffer otherwise it becomes catch 22 where the members feel more disenfranchised, are less active and recruit less members, meaning less income etc.
Normally there is a November NPF, but that was dropped to save money and then there was the prospect of no February one either. I was very concerned, in my role as the CLP vice-chair, because that would have meant no meeting for a year July-July.
How can we expect CLPs to take the trouble of holding policy discussions, communicating with us your reps, if we aren't going to any meetings to relay your views?
I took this argument to head office, but whilst sympathetic, the financial argument won. Following that I pushed the issue at the Joint Policy Committee, which overseas the NPF. I'm pleased to say that John Prescott backed me on the need for the meeting over other areas of expenditure and a couple of weeks later the meeting was back on the schedule.
It may seem a minor point but its why you have representatives like me representing CLPs so we can talk about the reality on the ground. If we hadn't had a February meeting I'm sure many members would have worried that the Cabinet Policy Working Groups were taking over all policy making. Instead we were able to find out about their work and how they will feed into the NPF through the policy commissions.
A couple of quick points I'd like to finish off on are; first, the party is increasingly recognising how important the south east is if we are to have a majority fourth term Labour government. Don't underestimate how important that is for when you want to feed into policy debates - the South-east does matter! Second, is don't hesitate to invite us to help with, or lead, policy discussions at your CLP. I have attended a number recently including the housing one in Woking and Sustainable Communities in Dartford - both were I thought really good debates and left members feeling they had had their say.
REPLACING TRIDENT – THE DEBATE BEGINS
BY DEBORAH GARDINER
In January, we asked members across the region what their views were on the replacement of Trident. This allowed us to go to the one-day NPF meeting able to express your views direct to Des Browne, the Defence Secretary.
The outcome of the consultation was:
Voting for replacement of Trident 25%
Voting for a smaller nuclear system 12%
Voting not to replace Trident 63%
At the one day NPF meeting, Trident was given a special session. Defence Secretary Des Browne started the debate by presenting the reasons why the cabinet had supported the replacement of Trident with a new system. A Trident-type system acts as a deterrent to countries that may want to attack us. Whilst that looks an unlikely scenario at this time, it is impossible to be certain that this would be the case 20 years from now, and if we did not replace Trident, it could take up to 17 years to replace it with a new one if there was a need. Finally, only a submarine-based ICBM system would be secure from detection and accurate enough to be a true deterrent. He also reminded the NPF that our 2005 election manifesto had pledged to maintain our nuclear weapons.
NPF members then made their points. There were several people who gave the results of their own consultations with party members, and those surveys generally agreed with our own SE survey, with a majority of members concerned about the replacement of Trident. Others did say that their surveys did show a majority in favour of replacement. Some raised the issue of the legality of replacing Trident under the Non-Proliferation Treaty, but these concerns were addressed and Des Browne also reminded us that the MoD had completely removed the aircraft-based nuclear system as well as reducing the number of missiles at sea.
It is clear that the debate will go on, and that the government has work to do in explaining its case for replacement. There is a White Paper explaining the position on this issue – for details, click here.
Public Services Workshop
By Martin Phillips
At the London NPF meeting, I chaired a workshop on public services with Caroline Flint, the health minister. As ministers wanted to hear as many views as possible from the NPF on this important subject, the workshop used a new format. Instead of a long speech from the minister and commenting on every point in detail, Caroline only spoke for 2 minutes at the beginning and briefly commented a few times during the session. This worked well, allowing everyone who wanted to make their point. I will certainly push for more of this kind of session at future meetings.
The discussion raised a wide range of issues, but health was the dominant subject, as it is concerning so many people in the party and the public at the moment. Many members were concerned that the current worries about NHS deficits and possible closures were meaning the public have forgotten the progress made.
The minister did recognise that this is a problem (see below for more details). Several members also expressed great concern over the lack of accountability of NHS management – we do need to find a better way to scrutinise all parts of the NHS on behalf of patients, and how can we stop the squabbles between the NHS and social services that mean patients have to wait while the authorities try and agree who will do what?
There were also concerns that the public want more choice in NHS services, but that the reconfiguration of the NHS made it look like there would actually be less choice. The minister did explain that there should be a larger and more diverse primary care system that will increase the choice in maternity, paediatric, heart and stroke services. The centralisation of some services would only be for acute cases and treatment – most NHS treatment is for minor injuries or conditions, and this should happen closer to home than now.
As the Health Commission was meeting just after the NPF, I was able to take these points straight to the Commission and Patricia Hewitt. We discussed the political impact of the changes to the NHS in detail. We heard evidence that clinicians were insistent that to save even more lives in acute cases, we would need to concentrate some services on fewer sites, including a startling reduction in baby deaths.
The Commission and ministers agree that we need to do a much better job explaining to party members and the public that any changes will be driven by medical evidence, and that clinicians are the ones pushing for change – this is not a process driven by financial measures or deficits. I got agreement from the Commission that we will introduce a newsletter that will explain our work and also pass on the evidence we are receiving. This will go to all CLPs and the first one should be available in the next month or so.