Peter Kenyon

Inside that envelope

Oooo..raffle tickets, Labour Today, covering letter and a 2nd class pre-paid envelope  err...where's the ballot paper? Aagh....err covering letter is headed "Our opportunity to shape the Labour Party's future 4th para ..The NEC....no, no no..has just appointed a new General Secretary ......NEC ballot paper enclosed? Nope, raffle tickets, Labour Today, covering letter and 2nd class pre-paid envelope.

Aagh, sooo silly.....turn over the covering letter the ballot paper is attached.

Should I use a cross or a tick?  Doesn't say!

What about the candidates? Covering letter pointers? Err, no. Ballot ballot paper references? Err, no. 

Aagh..Labour Today cover - no, its not a TV set in Gordon's living room - it says NEC Ballot 08 use your vote candidate details inside (8pt, maybe)

Page 2 - nope, Page 3 - welcome signed Harriet Harman, Page 4...Page 5...Page 15...NEC Candidate information

First task if elected get agreed format for future postal ballots that meets minimum standards for the conduct of such elections - ballot paper(s), candidate book, sae.

If the Treasurer has failed to factor in enough money to pay for OMOV ballots, then we can all draw our own conclusions.

Where are Labour's accounts?

Today is the official deadline for the filing of an annual Statement of Accounts by larger political parties with the Electoral Commission.

Parties whose total income or gross expenditure is £250,000 or less are required to submit a statement of accounts within three months of their year end. Those parties that exceed this limit are required to submit their statement of accounts within six months of their year end.

As a member of the Labour Party, I want to see a copy too - now.

All that the new General Secretary-designate Ray Collins has to do before he goes on holiday is authorise their publication on the Labour Party website - a virtual 'cost-less' exercise. It's what I would have done if appointed to the post.

Why? The future of the Labour Party depends on rebuilding trust not just with the electorate, but with the its dwindling membership - currently the source of 40% of annual income and activists to knock on doors and deliver leaflets.

Unlike, Sir Gerry Robinson, I am not demanding the head of the Leader, before I put my hand in my pocket. On the contrary, we have democratic procedures to elect Leader/Deputy. They could be improved. But blackmail should not feature in a so-called democratic society.

Personally, I will not donate another penny to central party funds until the accounts are published in a timely fashion and I have the right to question the NEC in general and the Party Treasurer in particular about their stewardship of the Party between Annual Conferences. Oh, before I forget, another pre-holiday action that the GS-designate could take would be to circulate those nomination papers for Leader/Deputy to CLPs pdq. Personally, I would be recommending no change. My hunch is that the majority of CLPs and affiliated trades unions and socialist societies would do the same. That would put the celebrity donors in their place.

Reaffirming a commitment to openness and accountability is the only forward for Gordon Brown. Don't you think?

Sleepwalking - Labour Party NEC style

Yesterday's Labour Party NEC took a perfunctory moment to consider the events leading up to the coronation of Ray Collins as General Secretary. How many candidates applied? Answer: five, and one withdrew. Supplementaries: None. Not even a smidgeon of curiosity about the identity of the person who withdrew. According to my sources he was one of the short-listed candidates in Round One, believed to be Michael Parker. So why did he withdraw? Was it a dawn-chorus moment courtesy of beleaguered Labour Party Leader, Gordon Brown. Ooooo, nooooo, we don't doooo deals.

Then there's the question of relations between members of the shortlisting panel comprising Labour Party Officers and the candidates. According to my sources the minutes of Labour Officers' meeting don't even list who was present. So that's alright then. No need to declare possible conflicts of interest if you don't bother to record who was present in the first place.

Oh, I nearly forget, the proceedings started with Obituaries - tributes were paid to the late Gwyneth Dunwoody and Tom (latterly) Lord Burlison, former professional footballer, deputy general secretary of the GMB union and Labour Party treasurer. Tom was remembered particularly fondly by NEC chair, Dianne Hayter as a 'fixer'. I kid you not, you couldn't make this up.

I'm still up for challenging this way of doing politics. If you are a Labour Party member, a ballot paper for the NEC constituency section election 2008 is due to be sent to you at the end of next week. Vote - Kenyon, Azam, Black, Reeves, Shawcroft and Willsman.

Collins appointed, despite unanswered questions

Ray Collins has just been announced as the next Labour Party general secretary. He rang me up a couple of weeks ago to talk about his application. We discussed the equal ops issues. Two other candidates and I who were told are services weren't required either in the earier recruitment Round (January to March) or Round Two (May - June) wrote to the NEC chair earlier this week. These are the questions we raised:

Key questions of NEC officers that apply throughout the process for all NEC members are:

i. What documents would have to be disclosed in the event of a case before an Employment Tribunal?

ii. What discussions took place between NEC officers and No. 10 staff during the recruitment process? What were the outcomes?

Round One (January to March 2008) - Short-listing

1. How many applicants were there and what was the gender/ethnicity breakdown?

2. Was each candidate evaluated in the same way? In particular, which criteria were used to select from the list of applicants through each stage to invitation to interview?

3. Did all candidates subsequently invited for interview by the NEC (hereafter referred to as ‘the Panel’) meet the criteria as set out in the Person Specification?

Round One – Appointment

1. Did the Panel decide which candidates were eligible for appointment prior to voting?

2. If so, was the Panel invited at the time, or subsequently, to decide whether the post should be offered to the next best candidate?

Round Two (May to June 2008) – Advertising

1. How did each of the applicants hear about the post? In particular, was anyone invited to apply and, if so, by whom?

2. Did NEC officers consider whether or not previous applicants should be advised not to apply, irrespective of whether they had been short-listed or not?

3. If not, why not?

Round Two (May to June 2008) – Short-listing

1. Who were the applicants?

2. Was each applicant evaluated in the same way?

3. Were potential conflicts of interest between any NEC officer and any applicant declared?

4. If so, did any NEC officer absent her/himself from the process?

5. Having allowed previous applicants to re-apply, why did NEC officers then decide to preclude some applicants in Round Two on the basis of the outcome of the evaluation in Round One?

We are acutely aware of the frustration not just for the NEC, but the Party as a whole, about the time that has elapsed since the previous General Secretary resigned. But if the NEC proceeds to appoint on 12 June, without due consideration of the process to date, the NEC leaves itself and the Party at risk of allegations of possible breaches of equal opportunities recruitment procedures.

We do not wish to comment on the worthiness of any of the candidates, but it is possible that after due consideration there were eligible applicants in Round One and Round Two who were excluded from interview unfairly due to flaws in the recruitment processes adopted by NEC officers.

We consider that in the interests of natural justice, all NEC members should be given the necessary facts to enable them to decide next steps. There is no need for a protracted delay. But we believe an open, transparent and fair recruitment would allow the Party to rally united behind the successful applicant in good time for Annual Party Conference.

As matters stand we are aware that, rightly or wrongly, the perception in the outside world is that an appointment even following interview from a shortlist of one is a political fix, not an equal opportunities recruitment. This will undoubtedly undermine the authority of the new General Secretary and the standing of the Party generally. This cannot be desirable at a time when Labour’s performance in recent elections, its level of elected representation in devolved government in Scotland and Wales and on local councils throughout the UK, as well as party membership are at historic lows.>

I will find out later whether they were brushed under the carpet, or raised and answered somehow.

Labour GS shortlist of one! NEC officers back Collins

A meeting of Labour Party NEC officers yesterday agreed a short-list of one - Ray Collins for the post of General Secretary.

This followed the withdrawal of Mike Griffiths reported earlier in Tribune.

My own application was rejected on the grounds of lack of managerial experience - not an assertion that would stand up to scrutiny. But this appointment is nothing to do with equal opportunities, its political.

Micro-management: is there a cure for Gordon?

There is no easy way to tackle this issue other than head on. If Gordon wants to win the next British General Election, a cure has to be found for his micro-management - overt or covert.

Piecing together events leading up to and since the 'hidden donations' affair broke last year, creating a vacancy for the post of Labour Party General Secretary, I fear that Prime Minister and Labour Party Leader Gordon Brown's compulsive micro-management disorder accounts for a lot that has gone wrong.

I have already impudently suggested that Gordon should dump the 'Ray Collins for GS' idea. This is not to suggest that Ray (whom I have never met, but curiously was lobbied about last night) is not the best man for the job.

First, what went wrong with the David Pitt-Watson appointment? One can only presume that NEC officers hung him out to dry over the question of liabilities for the Blair debts and given the Party's current financial predicament were unable to offer the sort of indemnity any person of even modest means would want in the circumstances.

Over-controlling is usually done by managers who don’t quite know how to manage.

And so it proved. It was a vivid example of Gordon's condition. He agreed to support Pitt-Watson, without making sure the Party would be able to meet his contractual demands in the event of being offered the post. Worse is to come, because instead of stepping back from the fray after discourteously sitting through the whole interview process working on official papers, compromising an equal opportunities appointment, he's at it again - micro-managing. Gordon's vision of Labour Party management is money - Jon Mendelsohn, election strategy - Douglas Alexander, Manifesto - Ed Miliband, supported by fictitious vice-chairs from the PLP, looking after the NEC.....the General Secretary, and members - well, who are they? No wonder he doesn't want Mike Griffiths, whom I'm led to believe, has a more rounded understanding of the responsibilties of the GS post.

Not content with compromising his own reputation by this governance-lite approach, Gordon is apparently quite willing to jeopardise the unimpeachable TU credentials for equal opportunities of Britain's two leading TU general secretaries, Derek Simpson and Tony Woodley.

For those looking for a cure, I prescribe flattery. Gordon, remember what we used to say about little people and rules? Well, it's the same with micro-management, it's for little people. Now you are PM, you are the big man. Step back. Let Labour values enshrined in equal ops shine, and the best person win.

My re-application is in the post.

Brown must dump Collins for GS idea to rebuild authority

Gordon Brown's political authority is inextricably linked to the future of the Labour Party itself. The latest issue of Tribune reports that Britain's largest union Unite's leaders Tony Woodley and Derek Simpson have thrown their weight behind assistant-general secretary Ray Collins, who has also won the support of No. 10. Shame on both Woodley and Simpson, if this is true, for throwing their own reputations as advocates of equal opportunities recruitment processes out of the window as well as that of the union they have created. If Gordon Brown has any regard for his own reputation he will put a stop to this nonsense forthwith.

If by any chance there are some financial strings attached to the cosy deal, it will not belong before some newshound exposes them, and Brown's tattered reputation will be shot completely.

I set my views out about the process here. Whatever differences I have with Mike Griffiths, over the way as chair of the NEC last year he handled Brown's proposals on Extending and Renewing Party Democracy they pale into insignificance compared with the way that first David Pitt-Watson and now Mike himself have been treated by No 10 political staff and some NEC members. They were both deemed appointable in an equal ops recruitment process, Pitt-Watson withdrew. Mike should be offered the job, unless the NEC can come up with an water-tight legal case not to offer him the post. I hope Mike stands his ground, and Brown backs him. After all Brown sat through the whole interview panel in March, so he must know the process was beyond reproach.

Labour First's last stand to control the Party?

The best explanation for the bizarre story that circulated earlier this week about the appointment of the next Labour Party General Secretary that I have heard is this.

At the heart of the intrigue is said to be Labour First (LF). LF is a non-membership brother/sisterhood of right-wing Labour Party members that is alleged to control the Party machine. BTW you won't find any reference to them here. Among those at the centre of the LF web is alleged to be Fiona Gordon, Political Secretary to the Prime Minister. She was the person, of whom it is said according to my sources raised her voice to David Pitt-Watson, who has now declined the post of General-Secretary, not Gordon Brown. She is the person, of whom it is said is actively promoting the candidacy of Ray Collins with support from the Amicus section of Unite (or at least its political director and former spin-doctor to Gordon Brown, Charlie Whelan) against the obvious candidate from the GPMU section of Unite, Mike Griffiths. Griffiths was interviewed for the job only six weeks ago. If Griffiths was deemed to be appointable then, and went through a legitimate interview process missing appointment by one or two votes, why hasn't the full NEC considered the option of offering him the job? Or has the Labour leadership lost its senses completely and ditched any pretence of following sound equal opportunities recruitment practices?

My hope is that the NEC will reconsider the position adopted by its officers as a matter of urgency.

First, they need to get a clear understanding of why the last recruitment failed. Unfortunately, to avoid scrutiny of their actions, NEC officers who met on Tuesday allowed the chair, Dianne Hayter, to cancel the next NEC scheduled for 22 May.

Now, it just so happens that the whole Labour Party NEC (remarkably in the circumstances) has been invited to Brussels next week by the Labour Group of MEPs in the European Parliament. If there were a quorum present, I would be demanding an Emergency Meeting in the hub of the European demos to overturn the NEC chair's ruling and reinstate the 22 May meeting. They have a lot more to discuss than just the appointment of a GS. Current declining membership trends, the Statement of Accounts for the Electoral Commission, rescheduling of loans, latest donations returns, and the outcome of the May elections to mention a mere handful. Oh, of course there's that by-election in Crewe on....oh, when is it? Oh, yes 22 May, what a coincidence. If any member of the NEC seriously believes that by cancelling their meeting that day it will have any bearing on outcome, then s/he has really lost touch with reality. (In any case, who's idea was it to move the by-election writ so quickly following the death of Gwyneth Dunwoody MP?  Of course, Fiona, couldn't possibly have had anything to do with it, could she?)

Perhaps the HR experts among readers of this blog would like to comment. Politically, I don't think we have a leg to stand on.

Anyone interested in knowing a little more about Fiona can find references here and here, with added material in the comments to both blogs.

Labour Party readvertises GS post

Potential candidates can see the ad here. Next task is to compare with previous advert/PS/JD and report back.

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....