James Morris: Reinventing Policymaking as an Open Party

James Morris, the Director of Mind the Gap, writes his second article on the need for a more open, democratic and networked Conservative Party.

I argued in my previous post that the Conservative Party needs to become a different sort of party; one that is more open and responsive to the wider networks of the modern world.

If the party is truly serious about becoming more open, more relevant and more attuned to the world as it is today it needs to re-invent, as it has done many times in the past, the way it makes policy. The party needs to create a truly open culture which can act as a catalyst for a true intellectual renaissance ; a renaissance which will once again make the Conservative Party an engine of ideas for solutions to the long term problems the country faces.

Some argue that, since 1997, the party has not engaged in any genuine broad based policy making at all. Where new policies have been developed they have emerged out of the awkward clash between focus groups and the output of the traditionally structured policy unit. This has resulted in either policies of the ‘dog whistle’variety the political usefulness of which was highly dubious (immigration?) or of the ‘too clever by half’ variety (patient passports?) which merely resulted in confusing the wider public. Proper consultations have been all too rare and where they have been done they have been done in a piecemeal or tokenistic fashion.

If the party is really serious about becoming a more open party, readying itself once again for government, it needs to re-invent how it makes policy to ensure that the solutions the party offers to the wider public are grounded in a real understanding of the problems and issues those people face. A more open policy making process would ensure the party focussed relentlessly on developing solutions to the long term issues the country faces; solutions focussed on what is ‘right’ for the country rather than what is most politically convenient for the party.

Policy cannot be created in a vacuum. It has to emerge from a set of broad principles upon which the members of the party can agree. Political parties, even open and networked ones, cannot just become sponges for an unedited wish list. A more open party, though, would have the courage to keep its policy options open ended, allowing for lines of analysis to be followed, and unexpected and innovative solutions to emerge through engagement with the real world and not just from the minds of policy wonks. Creative ideas and research are important but these cannot be done in isolation; true policy innovation comes when ideas come into contact with the rough edges of the real world.

Ideas for new policy approaches must be sought outside of the traditional policy making structures. Policy making in a new, more open Conservative Party will involve creative engagement with the widest possible network of ordinary citizens through engagement with voluntary groups, businesses, churches, charities etc

A more open Conservative Party should engage, to borrow a phrase from the software industry, in rapid application development mode. Policies should be prototyped quickly and those prototypes should be tested and debated by as diverse a group as possible. The party should invite ‘outsiders’ into the policy making loop; stakeholder groups, user forums, and independent advisory panels are all good ways of entrenching a broader, more open approach to policy making; resulting in more rigorous, more grounded and, above all, more relevant policy solutions. The party should also make use of new technology to encourage as wider participation as possible in the testing of policy prototypes through on-line forums and consultations.

Policy making in a new, open Conservative Party, would be driven from a broad set of shared principles, would be relentlessly focussed on the long term, and would have been developed with the broad-based involvement of the wider public. One of the political legacies of New Labour will be that there will be whole series of issues which this government had been either incapable or unwilling to tackle. It is the historic responsibility of the Conservative Party, as has been the case so many times in the past, to re-invent the way it makes policy, so when we do return to government the party is ready to once again take the tough policy decisions the country so desparately needs.

Comments

[Adrian Owens]

A wholehearted welcome for this platform piece. Now the Leadership election is drawing to a close, the new Leader and his team need to engage with members and the wider public in a wholly new way.

In the management of a business if one wants to bring about change, one is well advised to involve the staff and build commitment and ownership of the plans for change. Too often in recent times the party leadership has announced policies barely weeks before an election and expected us all (members and voters) to be 100% enthusiastic about this. Good management involves staff and good olitical parties should involve those outside the leadership inner circle.

Let's hope the new Leader adopts an open style to policy making and I hope that this blogsite can play some part in that more open process.

[Kenneth Irvine]

I agree with James. One of the main problems is that Central Office researchers and policy advisers have no real life experience of the sectors in which they work.

Outside groups may offer some good ideas but they need to evaluated by an industry specialist who is committed to the Party and its principles. We should be wary of special interest groups pursuing their own narrow interests and policy agendas. A good example is the environmental movement.

[Andrew Woodman]

Well good article. I fully endorse this view that policy needs to be tested on a much more broader scale outside the metropolitan loop. The internet offers fantastic opportunities to do this and we really need to embrace them.

[Andrew Woodman]

Very good that should be. Sorry.

[a-tracy]

I don't agree that outside groups should be committed to the Party. I think that it is important to discuss policy ideas with everyone even the dissenters so that you prepare well and have thought through all the implications to assist with all the arguments you are about to face.

To many policies are agreed in-house with too many nodding heads, who later claim that they didn't really agree with the policy but didn't like to say so! Well that's how it appears to me anyway.

[michael]

I'm interested in the next step, which is how we do it. Particularly, how does a local association develop a distinct local policy platform. How can activists weave themselves into the fabric of local communities so that Conservatives become local people again?

It's easy to deliver 10,000 surveys - providing you don't rattle the letterbox too hard, a Conservative activist need never speak to a member of the public at all. Spending hours and hours on residents groups, going to church, knocking on doors, is very hard work and when you are doing it with tiny resources and few activists, it isn't easy.

We should be swapping good practice. a-tracy knows how hard it is because she raised some of the practical problems I face as a public forum co-ordinator. Problems of how to engage when apathy rules.

[Derek]

The CPF [Conservative Policy Forum] has been an excellent way for members to get involved, and it is currently being revamped to include use of the internet and other wider forums.

[malcolm]

Could you send me details of this please Derek.I'd be very grateful.

[Oberon Houston]

If people are interested in getting involved with formulating policy, the CPF, is the offical network and you can participate through your local Accociation, or contact Jo Garner at CCHQ (JGarner@conservatives.com) for more information. The CPF is very well run and compiles many interesting briefing packs as well as engaging in discussions with members regarding policy. For specialist sections it is further divided, with online chat boards for each sub-element.

Another good way to get involved with centre-right policy is to join the mailing lists of groups like "Policy Exchange", which are independant of party political lines. Policy Exchange is excellent.

"www.policyexchange.org.uk"

Good piece James - maybe this site could start something!

[Frank]

Before the 2001 Election there were education policy working groups in which a lot of the people involved were serving teachers/lecturers plus others with experience of administering education, investigating it etc. There was real enthusiasm and commitment. But it ran into the sand a) because the party leadership had made up its mind in advance on a number of issues b) William Hague's chopping and changing led nowhere-it was never clear what leading Tories believed (or believe now).I was on one group and was picked on by me Head, who was a noted Labour supporter as a result. Grassroots involvement has never been the same since.

[Basil Blogger]

The changing demography of the UK - a ticking time bomb?

(awaiting peer review and publication)

Professor Coleman an expert in demographic studies has carried out much research in this field. There have been numerous incidents of majorities becoming minorities throughout history. The Christians in Lebanon are a recent case in point. The Serbs in the Balkans where the Albanian community eventually became a majority in Bosnia and Kosovo. The IRA in Northern Ireland stopped the armed struggle because it could achieve its aim of a united Ireland by the changing demography in Northern Ireland where Catholics are expected to become a majority. In the animal kingdom, and nearer home we have the introduction of the grey squirrel to the British Isles and the demise of the red squirrel. In the near future the Jews in Israel are expected to become a minority. Hence Prime Minister Sharon's decision to withdraw from Gaza.

Migration Watch disagree with the 2 million figure in the census they estimate that there are much more than 2 million immigrants in this country many of whom are undocumented. Assuming 2 million is correct (the national census is only based on the returns people send back), the issues of numbers is not what counts it is the rate of growth. The UK "native" population on average have one child per family. The ethnic population have an average of about 4 to 5 children per family. Birth Control and contraception is taboo for some ethnic cultures. The UK "native" population is aging fast (average is over 50 years old), while the ethnic population is very young (average under 20 years old).

Migration Watch UK (Sir Andrew Green) did some sums which showed that in the not too many years the indigenous "native" population will become a minority. For some this is a worry while others couldn't care less. So to sum up numbers aren't important but rates of growth or decline are. In London today migrants account for 30% of the population. Leicester will be the first city in the UK which will have a majority of its citizens of ethnic origin.

Secondly as for integration. Most ethnic people in Britain do not want to adopt our culture, values and tradition and do not want to be westernised. The young women want to keep themselves covered up wearing their burkas. By the way Kemal Attaturk banned women from the wearing of the veil and introduced Latin characters instead of the Arabic letters to Turkish, because he wanted Turkey to be western. No British government would be courageous enough to do what Attaturk did. I was in Istanbul, Turkey over summer. Sadly I have to report that an increasing number of Turkish women today are now covering themselves up. One young British Muslim said on TV that he looked forward to the day we have Sharia Law and a Muslim PM in Downing Street.

On the notice board of an NHS establishment there is a poster all about Islam produced by the NHS. I read it, it was extolling the virtues of Islam. There have been incidents in Europe which do cause concern such as the demonstrations in the UK against Salman Rushdie and his books being burned publicly. The killing of Dutch politician Pim Fortuyn for expressing his views on Islam, the killing of Dutch film director Theo van Gogh for making a film on Islamic Culture and the treatment of women. The bombings and riots in Europe caused by the increasingly militant European born Islamic extremists and Islamic fanatics.

As to what we can do. I was told by an expert who knows about these things that we can do absolutely nothing about it now. The horse has bolted. We can only lump it and live with it, by giving more representation to Muslims in the political life of Europe. We need more Muslims and members of non-European ethnic origin in European political life. People talk above the special case of more women in the British parliament even more important than more women what we need is is more non-European ethnic people in parliament and in high political office in Britain today.

The ease with which we give away British Passports can be controlled. Any Tom, Dick and Harry who comes here and stays for five years can get a British passport. We can guard borders better, control who comes in and who leaves, control our unmanned small airfields and small coastal ports. We can deport those who commit crimes or revoke citizenship to those who do not respect our laws. We can try to find out exactly just who is in our country, the government has openly admitted that we do not know who is in the country and who has left. All these measures will contravene the European Human Rights Convention, so we could have problems with Europe over any attempt to implement these not to mention problems with the courts in the UK.

The thing is we have an aging population and we are now economically dependent on immigrants to keep our NHS going and to keep our hotels, restaurants, railways, buses, taxis, airports, shops, stores, schools, hospitals functioning. One in ten workers in this country is an immigrant