Peter Kenyon

Private health insurance: reflections on junk mail from Aviva

Private health insurance junk mail, it could have been from any of the providers. But this one from Aviva happened to catch my eye this weekend. Just as the fate of the National Health Service (NHS) hangs in the balance, a siren call goes out - as I suppose it does regularly - from those in the business of exploiting our understandable preoccupations with our health and wellbeing.

It prompted me to ask on Twitter, 

Time for #Labour campaigning responses to Private Health Insurance 'junk mail'?

I don't want or expect any retweets (RT). But I hope that our policymakers and NHS providers will wake up to the extent to which the electorate is bombarded with messages such as those in this corrosive item of junk mail. Just look at the headings:

You deserve private medical treatment.

Did you know it's available at the BMI The Harbour Hospital?

No, ifs. You deserve it, and it's available locally.

That's good news, isn't it?

In just a few words, we'd like to show you how you can benefit from fast treatment, excellent care and comfortable surroundings.

Well I have no wish to find myself questioning the good name of either the insurer or the provider. But the words used to reinforce that last message above could IMHO have been used to describe the local NHS hospital service if the reforms under the last Labour government had been continued.

The invitation goes on:

Even greater cover, that fits you - and your pocket

What was it that recent international study said about the National Health Service?

Then the coup de grace:

We've enhanced our extensive cancer cover

I don't know about you. But I had a health scare in my nether regions just before Christmas. I was seen by my GP the same day, refered for a scan, given an appointment at Barts' the next day and, I'm happy to say, given the all clear on the spot after a thorough examination.

But the message to the electorate from the private health insurers is completely different. It questions the speed, competences and 'hotel' provisions of NHS hospitals and their staff. In government, Labour, to the best of my knowledge, was aware of the impact of this type of advertising on public perceptions, but failed to develop a comprehensive approach to reducing, if not eliminating the need for private sector provision. As part of our Save the NHS strategy, I'd like to see our campaigning including challenges to these insidious appeals to our fears about our wellbeing. Whenever I have a chance I talk up my experiences of the NHS, which are generally genuinely good. If they are not, I know who to complain to, and it is never the person sitting next to me on the bus or in the pub.

The private sector can never compete successfully with a genuinely National Health Service. That is why the current Tory government is trying to break it up.

As they say on Twitter :

#DroptheBill

 

 

Bank fraud squad ring to check a certain payment: Labour Party subs

Just a quick update on the joys of renewing my Labour Party membership. Ring! Ring! Good morning, Mr Kenyon. Tracey here from the HSBC Fraud department. Would you mind answering a few security questions, then we can get going......

Admittedly, there was a payment in Euros in the list from one of my favourite High Speed rail companies, iDTGV offering Paris - Bordeaux -  tix for as low as 19 Euros each way. 

But in the list of recent payments, I couldn't help laughing, was my £21.50 unwaged rate subscription renewal to the Labour Party. Yes, I confessed wearily to Tracey, that's one I'll own up to. To its credit within hours, the Labour Party MemberCentre database now acknowledges that I am paid up.

Whatever insults are being hurled at bankers, I'm most grateful that in this instance due diligence was exercised on my behalf. 

Why I joined Labour: the other side of the coin

I have just renewed my Labour Party membership online. It has taken the Labour Party's systems three months to catch up with my decision to cancel my direct debit. As my avid reader(s) know, I have a thing about accountability. Budgets and management accounts are essential in any organisation for all elected management committee/board members however it is incorporated. I could have resigned in the light of my experiences during my two-year term on the Labour Party's national executive committee (NEC). Instead I have chosen to stay and fight the cause of democratic socialism from inside.

My latest opportunity for gesture politics was to cancel my DD. Eventually a flag appeared on my Membersnet personal details inviting me to renew. An invitation I readily accepted, as having passed my 65th birthday I am entitled to pay at the reduced unwaged rate. It is a pity that the tables for membership rates have not been updated in line with current Conference agreed rates. But where there is a will there's a way. I just ticked 'Other' and manually inserted the current unwaged rate.

Then I was offered an opportunity to tell why I have joined the Labour Party. No warm words from me. So don't expect to see the following entry on the Labour home page. Rather crossly, I stated:

Been a member since 1978. Cancelled DD as do not trust Party with my money. One term on the NEC was sufficient. Having reached retirement age have reduced my membership status to unwaged.

There was no Print Page option so I cannot prove I have 'renewed'.  I will just have to keep a careful watch on my Credit Card account payments. 

As for the 'saving' on my membership, that will be going to my local branch to fund our next local election campaign. Here I have the satisfaction of knowing that the Treasurer has already produced the accounts for 2011, and they were presented to the branch last month, subject to audit. Audited accounts are expected to be available at the next branch meeting tomorrow.

For the avoidance of doubt: a NPF before Easter?

Working on the assumption that Labour needs to mobilise as many members as possible to win back London, what's going to get them motivated? Well, we can take it for granted that crass remarks by Labour Leader Ed Miliband committing Labour to sticking with Coalition public spending cuts, and shadow Chancellor Ed Balls pledging to freezing public sector pay will not get party activists out on the knocker. Let's not forget that the new Leadership, in what can only be described as a very unfortunate oversight, has gagged members directly elected representatives on the National Policy Forum. Nor can the Refounding Labour debacle be readily dismissed as an administrative hiccup. A deadening sense of business of usual, when Ed Miliband promised change, is having a corrosive effect on party confidence and could result in historical precedent being overtaken by events. Labour may have never replaced a leader by staging a coup, though former Leader Tony Blair, might want to disagree with that analysis.

Personally, I have no confidence in any of the alternatives cited as potential leaders by more celebrated commentators than myself. I want Ed Miliband back on track. Not as red Ed, but as democratic Ed - the Leader willing and wanting to listen. He should talk to attendees at the first National Policy Forum meetings in the early 1990s. They remember the former, and sadly late, John Smith sitting at the front and listening to debates.

Just because there are elections in less than 100 days time does not mean elected representatives should not be discussing and debating policy. On the contrary, I would argue the opposite. Given the need to persuade the electorate that Labour values matter, what better way to get key messages to members - you matter, and voters - we understand your needs and have better ways of addressing them, than having open discussion? 

According to Luke Akehurst's account of last Tuesday's National Executive Committee:

[He] asked why there wasn’t going to be an NPF meeting before the reps face re-election in the summer. Peter [Hain] said that if an affordable venue could be found then an NPF meeting would be held in late June or early July.

Rather than remonstrate with Peter, and rail against Ed, now is the time for practical responses. So, the Labour Democratic Network is asking all NPF representatives elected by members, and representatives of the other stakeholders, about their availability on Saturdays between now and Easter. Further it is offering to find and pay for a suitable venue in London to enable them to meet.

The proposed format is deliberative - no set speeches, no campaigning sessions eating into time for discussion, debate and voting. LDN hopes that this will be seen by the Leadership as a genuine offer to help set the seal on the change needed to our politics.

(Apologies in advance to any NPF CLP representative if we haven't got a correct eMail address for you, if you don't receive a Doodle invitation in the next 48 hours, please get in touch.)

 

 

Being Leader of HM Loyal Opposition doesn't mean members have to bow and scrape

Sorry, Ed but it has to be said. I didn't vote for you as Leader of the Labour Party to enable business as usual. I don't believe the vast majority of members and affiliates who voted for you in 2010 did either. Yet that is what you appear to be presiding over. If you want to know why you are not making headway in the polls, you probably need look no further than the National Executive Committee (NEC) agenda and the people sat round the table at today's bi-monthly meeting.

You will no doubt have given your Leader's report. NEC members will have put in a question or two, if they were lucky enough to be called by Chairman Cashman. But there probably wasn't any debate, and as for voting for or against any resolutions - perish the thought. 

That takes me to the root of Labour's mess. The party has been corrupted by a culture of deference and mis-placed loyalties. it would be naive to suppose that other political parties don't suffer from the same afflictions. They do. But we are the Labour Party. Constituted as a federated body of individuals, affiliates and elected representatives, mainly to the increasingly beleagured Westminster Parliament, our values have been suffocated by careerism.

You had a opportunity to stop the rot, to save the Labour Party. Instead you allowed your fratricidal guilt to be eased by the machine operatives, having plucked the crown from your brother with what now seem nothing more than false promises.

We were expecting internal party reform. Submissions were garnered. It was branded: Refounding Labour. Electronic means were provided to enable members to submit contributions. They could have been published for all interested members to see, read and analyse. But no. Those clever scheming control freaks failed to put a check box on the electronic submission form enabling members to authorise internal publication. Earlier this month, I received a letter from Head Office dated 22 December 2011 setting out various deadlines. It includes one concerning the party's policy making process - now that we are in opposition - known as Partnership into Power. It doesn't even include an eMail address for submissions, let alone an option to enable other members to see any other submissions. It is the ultimate insult in a democratic socialist party of which you are Leader.

A key internal indicator of your success will be membership trends. I would be very surprised if membership nationally on 31 December 2011 was higher than on the same day a year earlier, and I would be even more surprised if it wasn't starting to fall sharply. Tell me I'm wrong.

The temptations of office have to be rejected. Use of the first person singular about collective business should be banned. Policy is collective business. As leader you can guide and shape. But having gagged our National Policy Forum representatives, all one can presume is that you are frightened of debate and as a result your policies are a mess. The public sense that. The only way back is to start behaving like a democrat. Debate has to be enabled. People have to feel empowered.

 

"Mess left by Labour" - no, not the economy - the party

Even some right-wing commentators think Labour's leader, Ed Miliband, has had a good week, thanks mainly to Len McCluskey, general secretary of Unite the Union. I disagree. But it would be easy to get distracted by events. After the supposed repositioning of the Labour Party's economic policy, I blogged last week about the "Mess left by Labour" - Voters need to know ConDem mess is worse, and worsening , with a promise ..to be continued.

While most commentators are focused on the Westminster village, media positioning, individual performances as measured by opinion polls, I'm more interested in the structures and processes that shape modern politics.

Having listened to, and read endless speeches and interviews, I'm fed up of my party being blamed for a mess that never was. But after nearly nine years of looking closely at the Labour Party itself, I'm convinced the real mess plaguing Labour's electability is the party itself. Ed Miliband had an opportunity when elected to start to clear up that mess. Instead, he has been making it worse. 

There is only one piece of serious empirical research about party membership in the last 10 years that I know about. It was conducted by the LabOUR Commission and still available from the Labour Democratic Network website here . The main conclusion was that both current and lapsed members expected a say in Labour Party policy-making. That was back in 2006, and I doubt the expectation is much different today. For the avoidance of doubt, that's a say, not the right to dictate to or tie the hands of the Leadership. Instead, Labour Party members remain effectively gagged as I set out earlier this month here. Their directly elected representatives on the National Policy Forum  for 2010/2012 have not had the courtesy of a single NPF meeting to deliberate policy. Worse, there are sitting members of the National Executive Committee and hopeful candidates bombarding members with election materials, without so much as an apology for having failed to secure a date for an NPF meeting before the ballot papers are issued for the 2012/14 NPF term of office which starts later this year. 

This reflects misplaced loyalty to party colleagues. We are members of a democratic socialist party, not a glee club. Think on it. (to be continued.)

 

"Mess left by Labour" - Voters need to know ConDem mess is worse, and worsening

Everytime I hear those words: "we've got  to (insert cut, slash, burn proposal) we are clearing up the mess left by Labour", I shiver. As a member of the 'keep it simple, stupid' school of political thinking,, what could be simpler? There is no point anyone in the Labour Party pretending otherwise, the majority of the country including a fair proportion of Labour Party voters thought we had created a mess. Election defeat followed inevitably in May 2010. Worse, a Labour Cabinet minister, Liam Byrne, left a note on his desk for his successor proclaiming there was no more money.

The idea of that mess gelled, just as it did in the run up to and aftermath of Labour's defeat in 1979. In the months following the last General Election, it was a difficult idea to argue against. I was struck over 12 months ago how BBC1 Question Time and BBC Radio 4 Any Questions audiences were not easily swayed by Coalition spokespersons blaming Labour for their actions. But as a political 'given' holding back Labour's rating in the polls, and who could deny that, it is a lie that must be countered.

With a keynote speech from Labour leader, Ed Miliband to London Citizens, trailed last week, and another from shadow chancellor, Ed Balls at the Fabian Society's Annual Policy event yesterday, I couldn't help thinking - what better time than now to start putting the record straight? But no we were treated to more of the same neo-liberal economic dependence with a sprinkling of regulator exhortation that has characterised Labour economic mismanagement for the last twenty years.

The electorate deserves a lay person's narrative. 'You think Labour left the economy in a mess in 2010? OK, let's accept you are right. Growth today - lower. Inflation today - higher. Unemployment today - higher. So the economy's in a bigger mess under the ConDems, than when Labour left office. And tomorrow it will be worse.' (To be continued.)

That Labour leader speech: I am not enthused

Take one step outside the Westminster village and what have we got? An understatement of the obvious is as much enthusiasm as I can muster. The public was in a tax and spend mode ahead of the 1997 General Election after 18 years of Tory misrule. New Labour was way behind the curve. Today 15 years on, a Labour Leader is playing catchup. Unfortunately, events have got in the way, and complicated the narrative.

But the idea that the big difference between Labour and Tory is that Labour is the only party of fairness when money is tight is risible. Is there a single Labour Party member opposed to the idea of fairness per se?

As for the absence of a single word about fair taxes, shame on you Mr Miliband. Labour's political narrative remains to be set out.

Labour Party members' policy reps: 'gagged' for 2-years, now facing elections

For those of you braced for a late night tomorrow glued to CNN and the GOP New Hampshire primary spare a thought for Labour Party national policy forum (NPF) consitutency labour party(CLP) representatives facing an election next summer.

Since taking up office in the autumn of 2010, these hapless individuals (55 in total - five per Labour Party region) have been in effect 'gagged'. Unless something radical changes in the next two weeks, there will have been no NPF meeting at which Labour Party policy was discussed and voted on before ballot papers are issued for the 2012 NPF elections. Don't take my word for: Luke Akehurst, leading right-wing member of Labour's national executive committee and secretary of Labour First, in a recent Twitter exchange with me described the format for the last two NPFs as:

content free networking rallies for the nomenklatura

There was only one NPF in the preceding two years on my watch as an NEC member (2008-10), and nothing appears to have changed, despite fine words from Leader, Ed Miliband and more recently appointed general secretary (GS), Iain McNicol.

It is not too late for action. The Labour Democratic Network is willing to help pay for, arrange and staff an event to give our elected policy representatives an opportunity to meet, discuss and decide future policy direction. A proposal was circulated to sympathetic NPF members and select key decision-makers before the festive season to help gauge interest. Even among some so-called rabid lefties there was an understandable reluctance to make life more difficult for the new Leader.

But there appears to be solid support for the proposed format:

1030 Plenary start 

1100 - 1245 Policy Workshops 

1245 - 1330 Lunch 

1330 - 1515 Policy Workshops 

1530 - 1700 Plenary - debate, votes and wrap

Note: no provision for speeches or campaigning sessions - just concentrated policy discussion.

Of course, the directly elected 55-CLP reps account for barely a third of the total 180 plus NPF members. So there a a lot of other representatives to take into consideration. In particular, there is an elected Leader. He was interviewed at the weekend by the Guardian newspaper.

"I gather there has been some stuff in the newspapers"

he is reported to have opined laconically.

Acknowledgement of the role of members in Labour Party policy-making was there none. This is going to continue to haunt Ed Miliband until he gets it. With the wind of change blowing through Labour Party Head Office, and a new staffing structure in prospect, now is the time for both Miliband and his new GS, Iain McNicol to restore members' rights to have a say. Membership has stalled again, and unless people sense their opinions matter, they are not going to bother to stay in membership, let alone join the Labour Party afresh.

According to some well-informed sources the Labour Party does not have sufficient paid staff to service an NPF. That is why LDN is offering to assist pay for a venue and recruit volunteers to record, transcribe, and steward.

In the meantime nominations for NPF candidates have been invited in a Head Office circular to CLP representatives over the Christmas period. The deadline is 30 March 2012. The election will take place after the May elections. Incumbents could be forgiven for asking what is the point, if the Leadership isn't interested in your views - even if you have been elected to represent members?

Your call, Ed.

An indelicate question: Labour Party membership - stalled locally, nationally?

Overheard on the Westminster grapevine are encouraging figures about the growth of Labour Party membership since the 2010 General Election. It might suit some to buff-up the leadership of Ed Miliband with a shiny five-figure number. But viewed from the grassroots, that figure (65,000 according to an internal document 'leaked' to The Times and reproduced here http://bit.ly/wM8RJw), should be treated with caution. My best guess is that it is a gross figure (sic) and does not take account of resignations or lapses.

What is lamentable is that Labour Party senior officials know what total membership is nationally, by parliamentary constituency and administrative regional or branch in real time. That information is then used for internal political purposes, but rarely, if ever, as a legitimate performance indicator.

Past experience has been that the Labour Party will not publish that data. The best we can hope for is a national figure for 31 December 2011 in late July as part of the Statement of Accounts required by the Electoral Commission. That will be followed by CLP membership data for the same date as part of the Annual Conference Decision Book after the event in October/November ie 10 to 11 months later.

My own consituency had no new members in the last month. Nearly 10% are in arrears, therefore in the absence of fresh recruits or rejoiners, net membership already falling locally will continue to do so. This is not a surprise to me in view of the so-called Refounding Labour fiasco. Worse, the Party's so-called policy making process, Partnership into Power, has been shut to ordinary members for over 15 years. But the powers that be blunder on blindly, unwilling to look at the evidence staring them in the face that the Party on the ground is still too small and inadequately organised to ensure victory at the next Westminster elections.

Consolations, if that is what they are, come from fellow members who understand without prompting, for example, that annual accounts need to be prepared for forthcoming annual general meetings. My own branch treasurer delivered his draft for audit on the first working day after the end of the financial year. I think I should propose him for a Merit Award. Another branch chair, who is emigrating at the end of the month, has been ringing round members encouraging attendence at his 'retirement' AGM and as a result has two candidates to take his place requiring an election. Imagine! 

Now that I have got papers away to branch secretaries for our CLP AGM on 28 February (yes, two months away) and my own branch members for our AGM next week, it is time to check on those branches in need of rebuilding. In one instance it will be the third year running. But that's what goes with the job of CLP officer if you believe in rebuilding from the electoral ward up. In 2010 we failed to run candidates in every ward for every seat, we don't want that to happen again in 2014. 

To succeed we not only need more members willing to campaign, raise funds, contribute their skills and experience, we need wider recognition and support from the leadership for locally-based organisational capacity, collaboration and above all mutual respect and civility. 

Happy New Year.