How do parties devise their platforms in parliamentary nations?

In the UK every party does things differently, but being a member of a political party gives you the right to vote in the selection of candidates* for local government and Parliament, and the opportunity to join internal party organisations and networks that will give you an input into policy-making.

*There is no process for public registration for the public electoral authorities to conduct primaries.

Once upon a time, policy formulation was done very differently in the different parties- essentially, in the Tories the parliamentary party and its leadership set the policies and plans, though there would be various influential specialist groups arguing for different ideas and approaches - input from the bulk of members through their local constituency associations and the national party conferences was fairly indirect. As far as I know, things haven’t changed that much, since this year’s much-criticised manifesto for the general election seems to have been drawn up by the leader and a very small group of her coterie.

In the Labour Party, the process used to be much more public, with members in the constituency parties, as well as the trades unions, putting forward motions to the national party conferences, which could lead to long-drawn-out meetings trying to “composite” motions to get to a compromise/consensus, and for quite a while some knock-em-down debates at party conferences, especially over issues like nuclear weapons. For decades there was a tug-of-war between the parliamentary party and the (usually more leftwing) activists in the constituencies, and always with the risk that the conference would be bounced into passing resolutions that would be seized on by the press as “loony left”, even if the leadership was able to keep them out of the election manifesto - but then the conference rows with the leftwing activists would be reignited. Or they did make into the manifesto as in 1983 - described as “the longest suicide note in history”. It was feared that the election of Corbyn was a revival of all that, though the election result has rather taken the wind out of the critics’ sails.

It was in reaction to the internecine warfare within the Labour Party of the late 70s and early 80s that the breakaway SDP was formed, and from the outset, they instituted a “National Policy Forum”, in which constituencies elected people to work as a sort of internal parliament on developing and updating policies in a more organised and considered way, a process that, AFAIK, also applied in the old Liberal Party and in the merged Liberal Democrats.

As I understand it something similar developed in the Labour Party under Blair. Certainly, the main sessions of national party conferences held in the autumn of each year tend now to be booster rallies for cheering the leadership (as they always tended to be for the Tories), with any policy debates going on in fringe meetings and behind closed doors in internal party committees and organisations.

AFAIK all parties will have some provision for refusing membership, or expulsion, where someone is actively supporting another party’s candidate in an election, or behaves in a way that contradicts what they’re committed to in a party’s declared statement of values (as distinct from particular policy ideas), or otherwise “brings the party into disrepute”. Some people in civil service jobs at or above a particular level of seniority are not allowed actively to engage in party politics.

Conservatives

Labour

LibDems

Greens

My personal example of 40 €/month is a bit of an outlier. I joined as a high school student at the then minimum rate of 3 Deutsche Mark/month (nominally now about 1.5 €/month), but in the meantime I was elected member of local party committees for a combined 26 years and served as a city district councillor for about 3 years, and you do not get away with lowballing your income for purposes of party does in these case (particularly as I was local party treasurer for 2 years, and had to set an example…)

Generally German parties’ member fees are reasonable in proportion to income, and for the indigent they get waived in practice if not in theory (e.g. my local party organisation pays minimal dues for some longtime members now afflicted with dementia, for old times’ sake).

Party dues do go a long way towards financing the operation of German parties (the rest being income from party-owned companies, extra contributions levied from elected officials, income from investments and from donations)

That’s obviously very much different between countries.

What you describe for Canada would be blatantly illegal in Germany (where the constitution prescribes internal democracy in parties - the Führerprinzip being something that must never arise again in a party - and would be met with an immediate revolt (as in torches and pitchforks) by the membership.

On the other end of that spectrum is the Dutch right-wing populist party Partij voor de Vrijheid (Party for Freedom) of Dutch right-wing populist Geert Wilders. That party will reject any application for membership because the leader (Geert Wilders) considers the present membership (one person - Geert Wilders) quite enough, thank you very much. I imagine that makes for very harmonious and short party congresses. Candidates are nominated at the pleasure of the party membership (Geert Wilders). Obviously a quirk specific to Dutch law - such a party would not be legal under German law

Yes, German parties do accept donations (donations of 10,000 € and above must be published with name and address in the yearly accounts rendered by the party; donations of 50,000 € must also be immediately notfied to the president of the federal parliament and published by him.

The difference to some other countries like the US is that donations are just a small part of parties’ income and do not have the leverage that they do e.g. in the US because the expenses for electoral campaigns are much lower.

For example, according to the party accounts published for 2015, for the parties represented in the federal parliament (the 2016 accounts not having been published yet), the proportion of total revenue for the three largest parties from donations were

CDU (Christian Democrats): 9.29 % from natural persons/4.46 % from legal persons (of total income € 143 million)
SPD (Social Democrats): 5.12 % from natural persons/1.15 % from legal persons (of total income € 157 million)
Greens: 9.03 % from natural persons/1.45 % from legal persons (of total income € 40 million)

In Canada, there’s two different aspect to a party’s statement of principles.

The parties regularly hold conventions, and one of the main items of those conventions is the development of the party’s policies on a wide range of issues.

The policy development can be quite convoluted, since individual members, constituency organisations and other components of the party structure can put forward proposals, and then they have to be approved by the convention under the party’s internal rules.

But that’s not the same as the election platform. The platform is developed by the party’s campaign planning process and is intensely political. They will draw on the policy guidelines developed by the party convention, but their primary goal is to put together a platform that they think will appeal to the voters.

As Hari Seldon comments, the party leader has a substantial input, based on what the leader thinks has good political value in the context of the particular election. However, it’s not just the leader putting it together. It’s the party’s campaign planners.

Here’s an article which mentions that in the run-up to the 2015 election, the federal New Democratic Party took its policy statements down shortly before the election, and then replaced it with a more targeted election platform. In fact, they rolled out parts of the platform as the campaign proceeded, rather than all at once at the beginning, to try to keep getting media attention for each item that they announced in a staggered way.

https://www.google.ca/amp/ottawacitizen.com/news/politics/ndp-policy-manual-removed-from-partys-website-because-it-is-not-the-platform-ndp-advisor/amp

No, it’s not law. Political parties are organisations like any other and set their own rules for membership. My quick sampling though doesn’t show any party that asks if you agree with their views before allowing you to become a member.

For groups who try to be disruptive the same happens as if any other member starts being disruptive, they get banned from the party, but there is no pre-membership evaluation of ones purity.

If the group has the numbers and organisational skills to do it so large scale they take over enough local parties to dominate the national party scene, they would probably be better off just starting a party of their own.

If they are enamoured of this anti-democratic approach, and numerous enough and with sufficient power to prevent the in-party democracy from kicking them out, the party is likely to split.

At most they’d have some temporary monetary gains from taking over an established party, but any current position in government, local or national, would continue to be held by the “real” party members, who would go independent for the duration or join a different, possibly brand new, party.

So although I could join any party I wanted (as far as I know, there might be exceptions I’m unaware of, there are a lot of tiny parties), they are free to kick me out if I have weird intentions.

I think one thing that distinguishes the US party system from most other countries is the degree of government regulation of the parties in the US, and the lack of members, as others as commented.

As far as I can tell, as an outside observer, this difference flows from the primary system. To take advantage of a primary election run by the state, the party has to meet whatever conditions the state requires. One of the big implications of that is that anyone can register to vote in a primary run by the state, so the parties do not have control over their own “membership”.

That’s not the case in parliamentary countries, where the parties run their own nomination systems. They get to determine who their members are, and thus who can vote to nominate candidates. There’s much less control of the internal party operations by the government.

Yes, but as you started to say, that’s a characteristic of the primary system, not the of the parlimentary system. You could run a parlimentary system with locally-run quasi-autonomous non-government organised primaries. England and Aus are two countries that take quite different approaches, and there is space in the middle for other systems.

In Aus the run-off elections / state-run-primary is done on paper, on the voting day: the least popular candidates are eliminated, sequentially, your vote automatically goes to your next preference which you had the place toprovide on the ballot paper.

I understand the sensitivities, but is there no check other than the local selection process on whether someone is competent/respectable/committed enough to represent the party? In the UK, you usually need to have gone through that sort of preliminary character/competence check by the national party organisation before putting yourself forward to a constituency. And how does Germany manage selection for the additional list members?

One thing we perhaps haven’t made clear is the difference between the “motherhood and apple pie” statements of general principle that appear in parties’ constitutions, and the detailed policies they put forward at each election. Changing the former is a major upheaval (see for example UK Labour Party battles over “Clause IV”), the latter is always in development and whatever the party’s policy-making procedures may have decided doesn’t necessarily get into the manifesto for any individual election. Likewise, as in any system, whatever’s in the manifesto may be stymied or sidelined by the pressure of unexpected and subsequent events.

Thanks, everyone, for your insights and observations.

No. You can generally register as a candidate with any party you choose, subject to whatever state law requires.

Does Labour still automatically provide trades unions with voting power on party functions?

I think Patrck London is asking about nominees for office, not just party membership, in Germany.

Whoops.

To some degree, but it has been watered down since the days of high proportions of the workforce being unionised and the unions wielding huge block votes on their behalf in party matters.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labour_Party_(UK)_affiliated_trade_union

If there’s no members at all in American parties, how are the officers chosen? Even if they aren’t proeminent political figures, someone has to sign the official statements, to pay the bills, to organize meetings, etc…

The bottom rung is often chosen at a primary election or caucus. In 2016, one of the items at the bottom of my Democratic ballot was for choosing my precinct’s member of the county Democratic Party’s central committee (nobody ran for it). In 2014, I got to vote for both a man and a woman (separate seats) from my state senate district to sit on the Ohio Democratic Party’s executive committee. The committee then meets to elect the chair.

Local party groups send delegates to the state and national groups, who then elect officers. But you don’t have to do anything to vote in a local party meeting; you just show up.