Giving members more voice in policy-making requires cultural changes which will challenge the leadership and party activists, argue Tim Horton and Sunder Katwala. You can read their full submission to the NEC consultation on party democracy here, drawing on research for the Facing Out pamphlet.

Full text of the report.

Successful party reform must be rooted in a clear and shared vision of why change is needed. Otherwise, power struggles between different interests will dominate. In the '80s and '90s, the overriding priority was to return Labour to power. The challenge today is different. Labour has learnt how to win elections, but has been less good at achieving long-term shifts in public opinion. Embedding a "progressive consensus" in British politics will require rejuvenating the party and reconnecting it with the communities it serves.

The first key challenge for Gordon Brown will be to show Labour members that their voice counts. Fabian Society research found that while 54% of members feel that their views are taken into account, 41% don't. What's more, our polling found that members of progressive NGOs (like Oxfam) feel more effective and valued by their organisations than Labour members do. That should be a wake-up call for a democratic party - but it also casts doubt on the traditional remedy. It can't be constitutional rights to make policy that make the difference, since that isn't on offer to NGO members.

The key was that, overwhelmingly, they felt listened to by their organisation. It is "voice" rather than "power" that makes for engaged members, and on which reform should focus. So strengthening the National Policy Forum is the right approach. A deliberative forum can give members more voice than voting on competing resolutions in an adversarial forum.

But the NPF has had a credibility gap with many members. Unless members are convinced that they have a genuine stake in any new system, many will be reluctant to countenance change. Better communication will not be enough to close this. Ministers need to take part in a dialogue about future policy options, not a party briefing on what government policy will be. The proposed duty on the NPF to engage with members is useful. But why stop there? A parallel duty on Ministers to engage with the NPF, and report back on its influence on policy - would demonstrate a commitment to taking party policy debates seriously.

Reform must also reach out beyond current 'insiders' if it is to be more than an exercise in managing decline. The good news for Gordon Brown is that he can engage the 'Make Poverty History' generation. The Fabian Facing Out polling found many non-party progressive activists want to 'join in' with Labour campaigns without having to 'sign up' to the party card.

But some of Labour's most loyal activists are suspicious of opening the party up to those who do not share their level of commitment. This 'protectionist tendency' needs to be challenged. Labour can not afford to turn away the energy and activism of millions of people prepared to campaign for progressive causes, like ending child poverty.

The proposal to support local parties in reaching out to communities is a good idea, but what would it mean in practice? We propose that the party should create a new 'permanent fringe' of progressive activity at national and local level.

The reforms are a step in the right direction. But they depend on changing the culture of the party – with a leadership more comfortable with internal pluralism and debate and able to break with the control model of the 1990s, and a party able to face out and connect to a broader coalition for progressive change.

It is time to acknowledge that the sovereignty of the party conference is one of Labour's sacred myths. How many party members actually believe that contemporary resolutions at conference are the way to make government policy? But this is not a new debate. At the 1907 conference, the year after the PLP was formed, Keir Hardie faced down calls for conference delegates to mandate Labour MPs, insisting conference votes were 'opinions only' and could not bind the parliamentary party.

That is how Labour politics has always worked – with effective authority resting with the elected leadership and MPs, and pressure from members and affiliates. Members do influence policy through pressure politics – as the Warwick agreement on employment rights, and policy changes on women's pensions have shown – but not through anyone mandating anyone else to do anything. That is simply not how government works. The sooner we all grow up and accept this the better.