Peter Kenyon

Curbing MP power in Labour leadership (s)election

I was told by a No 10 insider six months ago that Annual Conference 2008 was not a time for further constitutional change. I hope in the light of recent events that position is being reviewed as a matter of urgency.

The Parliamentary Labour Party risks being seen as a fickle focus of power in the (s)election of Labour Leaders. Patronage and careerism has corrupted the judgment of too many Labour MPs. Affiliated organisations, CLPs and individual members have no say until too late in the process. That is now clearly evidenced by the way in which overwhelming endorsement of Gordon Brown to the exclusion of a Leadership election has turned to disaffection, discontent and outright opposition to him. Martin Kettle in today's Guardian reports that 90% of Labour backbenchers want a Leadership contest. Not sure about that but it is symptomatic of Westminster village hyperbole now driving the news agenda.

Why did they back Brown so overwhelming that no-one else got a look in when there was an opportunity for real debate? This will not be lost on the electorate, who could be forgiven for thinking of piss-ups and breweries.

Some Labour Party members think the answer lies in reducing the threshold of endorsement for potential leadership candidates. I remain of the view that just implementing Rule 4.2 B (ii) and (iii) will help restore a sense of proportion. The call for nominations from all sections of the Party will allow considered reflection of what is now in our best interests - stability both political and economic. I'm with Rhodri Morgan. A change of leader now would be madness. But a write-in nomination process would restore Gordon Brown's authority and open up a dialogue across the Party to refocus on taking on the Tories.

A Rule change to elect the National Policy Forum by one-member-one-vote is another issue requiring urgent action this year to give members a genuine say, rather than the tokenist approach in the current round of Partnership in Power. Last weekend's National Policy Forum merely endorsed the policy agenda conceived at the centre and so rightly attacked by David Miliband. His was an appeal to Gordon Brown. Without the whole Party behind Brown, rebuilding, campaigning and raising money, more policy rabbits and a reshuffle won't work. Grabbing that opportunity over August would put him head and shoulders above his critics and back where some of us thought he wanted to go last year.

The other reason why MP power should be curbed is their backyards. A close look would leave many of them deeply embarrassed about the hollowing out of vital local links needed to convey Labour messages on the doorstep. As a newly elected member of the NEC constituency section I renew my open invite to any Labour MP to start a crusade to rebuild.

Don't be shy David - sign Gordon's nomination

Let's be done with all this media speculation. It's so uplifting when a Cabinet Minister refers to the Labour Party rule book as he did in his Guardian article citing a section from Chapter 1, Clause IV (FOUR) printed on the Party card. Fast forward to Chapter 4 Rule B 2 (ii). Bring out the garlic, stake and cross. Woaaah...rules are for little people...well, if they are good enough for David - now widely acclaimed as Leader-in-waiting at least by the fourth estate and Political Betting, they are good enough for me.

This is how Chapter 4 Rule B 2 (ii) starts:

ii. Where there is no vacancy, nominations shall be sought each year prior to the annual session of party conference.

Quite so. Don't worry, Gordon you don't have to do a Major and resign to play a 'Put-up -or-shut-up' gambit. You just have to be humble and submit yourself to a democractic process designed to give your fellow Party members a chance to signal whether you have their continued support or not. So are you up for it? More critically after David's article is he willing to lead the charge?

Labour makes £7.5m in 2007; unsecured loans £15m

At last - a month late. The audited version was approved by the NEC on 25 June 2008. As the Electoral Commission advice last week clarified there is no reason in law why the Party could not have published them immediately for the benefit of its members.

One paragraph in the Independent Auditors' Report is of particular note:

"This report is made solely to the members of the Labour Party in accordance with the Party's rules and Section 41 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 200. Our audit work has been undertaken so that we might state to the members those matters we are required to state to them in an auditor's report and for no other purpose. To the fullest extent permitted by law, we do not accept or assume responsibility to anyone other than the members, for our audit worl, for this report, or for the opinions we have formed."

Next question if it is made for the members, what steps has the NEC agreed to make sure it is available to all members?

I look forward to the usual torrent of abuse for daring to hold the NEC to account for its stewardship of the Party between conferences.

Miliband D writes in Guardian

Here is a preview. Here's the Miliband piece.

Cor blimey, a smidgen of truth? Time to ask members

It's not even August yet. If this story has a smidgen of truth in it, then it's definitely time to send the Labour Party Leader/Deputy nomination papers out as I suggested earlier this week. I'll be recommending Brown and Harman for Leader and Deputy. Well, at least if they have got the political guts to send them out in the first place with a suitable reference to the Rules broken by the Blairites since 1997. A mock up is in the works.

Warwick visitors: Draper (unelected) 1: Kenyon (elected) 0

Following my election to the NEC with 16,464 votes, I requested a visitor/observer ticket to the National Policy Forum, it was refused by the Acting General Secretary Chris Lennie. How can he justify that refusal when Derek Draper had one? I can guess in which capacity Derek was invited from press reports. He's a volunteer. But what message does that send to Labour's members who have just voted six candidates to represent them on the National Executive Committee and (under the Rules) on the National Policy Forum itself?

If I had been appointed GS all newly elected members of the NEC/NPF would have been invited as part of their induction. New members take up their places formally in September after Conference.

Labour Conference guidelines (part) on STLP website

Alongside a highly readable lament by Polly Toynbee in today's Guardian about how the Labour Party's National Policy Forum has effectively stifled debate at this year's Conference in September, official guidelines have been written which will be seen by many as further dampening the possibility of real political discourse.

The guidelines, now available on the Save the Labour Party website come in the form of a six-page guidance note from the Conference Arrangements Committee concerning 'Contemporary Issues'. This was one of Gordon Brown's ideas set out in his paper 'Expanding and renewing party democracy' bounced through passed by the National Executive Committee on 24 June 2007 - the day of his coronation adoption as Leader of the Labour Party.

A deadline of 12 September has been set for the submission of 'contemporary issues'. I know that date is before my own CLP meets in September. STLP intends to survey the Party nationally to find out how many CLPs have meetings scheduled before that deadline.

To date, no official information about this issue has been circulated to CLPs whatsoever. It is a scandal and further evidence of why Labour will remain unelectable in Westminster until its Leader acts like a democratic socialist. That means encouraging debate, not suppressing it. Perhaps, he should be subject to the backyard test first?

UPDATE : POLL Has your CLP got a scheduled meeting before 12 September?

Doubts about NPF 'agreements' surface

More than 24-hours after the NPF finished in Warwick there is still no official information for the 'hundreds of thousands' of people that the Labour Party website claims have taken part so far. If Labour wants to win the next election it has got to start treating its members with respect. My CLP has already written to one of our London Region national policy forum representatives, who has been playing an 'unofficial' coordinating role, asking for a clear account of what happened to each of our policy amendments. But the absence of information except through the mainstream media has already provoked angry reactions here, here, and predictably here. However, there are some cheerful souls here. The key question is how would the membership vote on a one-member-one-vote (OMOV) basis if offered the chance on each major controversial policy? That's the big organisational challenge ahead of Conference.

The John Prescott challenge - I'll show you....

Following my backyard test blog yesterday, It occurred to me that Save the Labour Party should recruit John Prescott to revive the idea of the one million member party. Where would we start? Well, I thought it might be an idea to compare and share some basis facts about our local constituency labour parties (CLPs) mine in Cities of London and Westminister and his in Kingston-upon-Hull East. So, John the challenge is - I'll show you mine, if you show me yours.

Handled sensitively could this be a way of reviving interest in party politics and the Labour Party, in particular?

Accountability - the route to re-electability

Save the Labour Party, of which I'm the elected chair, is often criticised for focussing on structures and processes - rules are for little people. Yup, it's the little people, or ordinary members as John Prescott patronisingly described us yesterday in his blog outing, that form that phalanx between the voting public and the political class.

My own CLP has tabled a rule change calling for the publication of a provisional Conference agenda with the Annual Accounts by 30 June. Under the Labour Party rules this proposal - a vital but symbolic step to restoring accountability in 'normal' circumstances will not be considered until Annual Conference 2009, and if agreed not enacted until 2010 - just after the next General Election.

Some wags on this blog have been harping on that the Labour Party could not possibly publish its accounts before they have been vetted by the Electoral Commission. Not true. I phoned the Electoral Commission (EC) last Friday. An EC spokesman said: "There is nothing in the legislation [PPERA 2000] to stop a political party publishing its accounts before submission to the Electoral Commission."

So in a letter to the new General Secretary I will be asking for the NEC to discuss this CLP inspired move for consideration at the 2008 Conference for implementation in 2009, and in recognition of the importance of accountability making sure that all Party Units have a copy of the Provisional Agenda and Accounts in time for August (if any) and September pre-Conference meetings. It will form part of a package of accountability measures required for immediate consideration to rebuild membership, campaigning capacity and local fund-raising to go alongside the Party policies likely to get Labour re-elected. 

If you have any ideas of what should be in that package, please let me know pdq.

BTW - the EC is publishing the accounts of the larger political parties on 30 July. They should include Labour's membership figures for end December 2007.