Labour Party to abandon equal ops over GS shambles?

David Pitt-Watson's decision not to take up the post of General Secretary of the Labour Party was announced last Friday in the wake of last week's 'disappointing' election results,. Speculation is now focussing on a quick fix to appoint. As yet, I have not spoken to any of my fellow CLGA slate colleagues who are currently sitting on the NEC. But those members whom I have spoken to are concerned about the NEC's commitment to equal opportunities. Will this be abandoned in the circumstances?

That begs the question of what are they (the circumstances, that is)? The latest vacancy arose from the abrupt departure of Peter Watt (pictured) last year, following revelations of hidden donations to Labour Party funds in apparent breach of electoral law, and Party Rules. Peter was the fifth General Secretary in ten years.

The post is theoretically an elected position of Annual Conference. IMHO we should have an OMOV ballot. But at the NEC officers meeting yesterday, it was decided to reopen applications without the assistance of headhunters (Rockpools invoice for the previous abortive recruitment is believed to be a modest £50K.)  According to my sources, NEC chair Dianne Hayter unilaterally cancelled the NEC scheduled for 22 May, in favour of a meeting in early June after which applications will have been sifted by Party officers. (Don't they have any other business to discuss? So much for good governance.)

Whether that decision stands is a moot point. But there seems little doubt that No.10 has done another wobbly and is now backing former T&G official Ray Collins, who failed to secure the votes on the NEC when a non-equal opps selection process led to the appointment of Peter Watt back in 2006. Charlie Whelan, political director of Unite, and Brown's former spin doctor, is being cited by sources who prefer to remain anonymous as the source of the 'Ray's the next GS' story. How that idea is squared with the five hours committed by the Leader of the Party to the abortive interview panel that elected David Pitt-Watson is a bit of a mystery at present. (Insiders say Brown sat on the panel processing official papers until the time came for the vote - not the best advertisement for equal opportunities recruitment processes, either.) As for Mike Griffiths, who failed by a narrow margin to secure the post against Pitt-Watson, the speculation is that he will only apply again if he can win.

As avid readers of this blog will remember, I was a candidate in the first round of this latest recruitment. In the absence of an invite to interview from No. 10, the headhunters, I blogged about the competences needed. I came down in favour of a financial strategist/negotiator inclined to rebuild a mass membership party, rather than a trade union fixer, who delivered for Brown and the unions; but not the CLPs, and the wider membership.

One to watch....

Comments

[Adrian]

"...rather than a trade union fixer, who delivered for Brown and the unions; but not the CLPs, and the wider membership"

The trade union affiliates are the widest part of the membership by far, so what is wrong with somebody supported by the unions?

Though obviously voting at Conference would be best if time allowed, which is does not.

Adrian

[Peter Kenyon]

Dear Adrian

The problems are these:

1) the affiliated trade unions can not be seen to be dictating to the democratically-elected leader of the Labour Party

2) in these circumstances, the temptations for general secretaries to "do deals" are irresistable

At Annual Conference 2006, the NEC met on the opening day of conference and was shut down for the duration with the tacit approval of the TU GSs.

At Annual Conference 2007, the TUs agreed to back the Leader's plan to extend and renew party democracy and shut down debate on contemporary and emergency resolutions until 2009 with the explicit approval of the TUs.

Need I say more?

[ThomasT]

Quite right they should cancel a NEC meeting on May 22nd!

There is a little something of a by election. I hope to see as many members of the NEC campaigning as possible. And everyone else who is seeking my vote for this year's elections along with the grass roots alliance en masse.

[Adrian]

Peter

It is true that in many respects trade unions have been a conservative force within the party. However you have not really answered my point that you talk about the wider membership, but the trade union affiliates are the widest membership by far. I think you are playing down the federated structure of our party which, in my book, is one of its most important elements. It would be a tragedy if, as many on the right would like, the union link were broken, even under the guise of democratising the party.

[Peter Kenyon]

Dear Thomas

Nice idea, but that was not the reason posited by NEC chair, Dianne Hayter. Reads more like panic.

As a stickler for protocols and good governance, I read cancellation of board meetings as an 'early warning sign' of organisational disfunction. Indeed, the Development Trust Association is publishing shortly an 'Early Warning Guide' for execs and non-execs of voluntary associations, companies limited by guarantee and charitable bodies.

We elect representatives to the NEC to oversee the Party's affairs. Constituency reps are volunteers, unlike the vast majority of other NEC members. I would prefer them to concentrate on ensuring the Party is solvent, acting ethically, run democratically and able to retain and recruit members. Then perhaps we would not face the risk of losing Crewe and Nantwich.

[Tim]

Peter,

Perhaps instead of spending your time as a "stickler for good governance and protocols" which debates have led to our LGC not having a coherent meeting in over two years, losing three Secretaries in that time, and one of your allies reducing two women delegates to tears, and so insulting one young delegate attending her first meeting that she is considering her membership of the Party, you could actually stop bogging the internal mechanisms of the Party down, come into the 21st Century, and realise that people do not want to sit in meetings having the Rule Book quoted to them ad nauseum, but actually want to debate policies and get onto the streets beating the Conservatives/Liberal Democrats/BNP etc.

Or is that less important than "good governance and protocols"?

[Peter Kenyon]

Dear Tim

Aspiring to good goverance and winning elections are not mutually exclusive options. On the contrary, I see them as complementary.

The circumstances you describe in your LGC are clearly lamentable and beg more questions than I care to mention. However, I hope we can agree that the Party has to tackle its internal organisation in the context of retaining and recruiting members as well as winning elections.

[Robert]

You keep on talking about getting a mass membership you cannot even get a general secretary, you only get mass membership when people agree with policies, when people see Labour as being the Labour party, people see New Labour in my area as a copy of the Tories and a poor copy at that. But it's nice to see our MP come out last month and tell us she is not New Labour but a socialist, we would never have guessed by her voting record.