Policymaking reform; what the problem is and how to solve it

New members often ask how to find out what current policy is, on a wide range of topics, how to influence or 'input' on policy, and indeed what the party does with its policy once it is established.

Normally I explain that in policy Conference is supreme, at least in theory. I talk a bit about Policy Working Groups (PWGs), initiated by the Federal Policy Committee, FPC. I also explain that there is a review of policymaking underway, to be discussed at Autumn Conference.

In this context, new members may appreciate a quick summary of my personal views of some of the problems and how we might approach solving them.

PROBLEMS

1. What current policy actually is, is not always easy to determine. There are past conference motions which may be extant or which have been partly or fully rescinded. Some conference motions are passed without reference to extant policy. Also, the relative status of different motions is not easy to establish; new/old, regional/national/European, Spring/Autumn, incidental/high priorty.
2. Conference-approved motions are routinely ignored by leaderships and the parliamentary parties. This may be justified by fast-moving events or poorly worded motions. However, some good, timely policies too are not taken up by the leadership, or parliamentary parties.
3. Lib Dem 'policy' more generally can originate from the Leader's Office, the parliamentary parties, or HQ Policy Unit. (eg those that provide the basis for manifestos or coalition negotiations). This pragmatic system lacks structure and sufficient member consent.
4. The system of PWGs is very lengthy, and it is hard to reconcile the electorate's problem-solving priorities with those of all the PWGs which are commissioned. Interested members raising policy matters are often advised to wait for the next relevant PWG, potentially 3 years away. This is clearly an unsatisfactory way of making good use of members' experience.
5. Members apply to be PWG members based on their expertise, but then enter a system copied from Parliamentary committees; where research is undertaken as generalists 'taking evidence' from expert bodies. It's thus unclear if PWGs are expert or 'representative' committees (Notwithstanding, the result is often public affairs staffs giving promotional presentations rather than evidence for public policymaking). There is no active search for top experts for PWGs, no quality guidelines and no conflicts of interest rules.
6. Importantly, PWG reports to Conference often lack structure. Very many do not state clearly, the problem(s) they are trying to address; they merely start with a handful of very general questions. The result can be long lists of disconnected recommendations.

SOLUTIONS

1. Any new system needs to be explicit about the difference between generalist policy bodies which are representative of members, and those which are expert. We need a fair system for the former which taps the experiences of members across the UK, and a proper open system for the latter, getting the very best experts (among sympathisers who may not necessarily be members or even in the UK).
2. Policy groups of both types need guidance on; quality attributes (eg stating problems clearly etc), conflicts of interest rules, better briefs, regular updates, and on prioritisation which takes into account the public's, as well as the Party's, priorities.
3. Any new system needs much greater clarity on the status of motions passed at Conference, describing precisely what happens after a policy motion is passed. It should be clear who works on detail, next steps, and reports back (and if ignored, why).
4. There is an obvious need to keep an internet-based library of extant policy; informing policy proposers what current policy is, and what is fully/partially rescinded etc. In addition, it also needs to highlight contradictions in extant policy so they can be resolved. Initially, this is a big piece of work, so we may need to call for volunteers to deal with the up-front workload.

* Paul Reynolds works with multilateral organisations as an independent adviser on international relations, economics, and senior governance.