Peter Kenyon

Labour's NEC/NPF candidates should have an all-member eMail slot

Today, the Labour Party National Executive Committee (NEC) has been meeting. In the wake of complaints about certain candidates for internal elected office having access to all-members contact details, by fair means or foul, I wondered whether consideration was given to a comradely gesture.

Instead of a witch-hunt, did our NEC representatives consider following a precedent established during the 2010 leadership election campaign and grant all candidates an opportunity to make a personalised communication to all members? NB. This does not require releasing membership details to all candidates, but use of the national membership datebase, and a modicum of staff time forwarding to members one communication per candidate (willing to gamble the risk of alienation in the hope of securing an extra vote). 

If not, it must be within the powers of the General Secretary, Iain McNicol, to ensure a more level playing field for the NEC and National Policy Forum 2012 elections now underway?

Even though ballot papers have gone out to most members, a gentle reminder in the former of personalised communications between now and the close of polls at 5pm on Wednesday 13 June 2012 might even increase turnout.

 

 

Peter (Black Hole) Hain sets out Partnership into Power timetable

Patrick Moore's 700th Sky at Night is being (re)screened on BBC Four. All that talk of black holes couldn't help reminding me of Peter Hain MP, Chair of the National Policy Forum. Earlier today I , along with every other e-literate Labour Party member, received an invitation from the man himself. Peter, that is, not Patrick. Patrick is interested in informing, enlightening and enthusing. I'm not convinced we can say the same about Peter.

Peter's eMail asserts:

...Labour is changing to ensure that we can deliver fairness, even in tough times, by making different choices and tackling the vested interests that hold Britain back. The documents look at some key areas where Labour is setting out a new approach – and we want to hear your views.

Your ideas and comments will feed into our policy making process, Partnership into Power, helping to shape our manifesto for the next election. Everything we hear will shape discussions in our policy commissions and at a summer meeting of the National Policy Forum – before the documents go to Annual Conference..... 

Peter is offering exactly the same format for responding that has left members with no confidence in Partnership in(to) Power, and me personally with no confidence in Peter Hain.

One clue is in the format. We submit, but can't see any other submission, can't enter into debate, and consequently can't be sure that what emerges from the consultation process bears any relationship to the submissions.

Secondly, consider the timetable:

We’d like as many submissions as possible by Friday 8 June. Submissions which reach us by this date will help to inform discussions at the National Policy Forum meeting on 16-17 June. Submissions received after this date will still be considered – with those received by the end of June informing policy commission when documents are redrafted ahead of Annual Conference.

My own CLP's branches that are meeting monthly have already either met or issued agendas in the May cycle. The deadline is before any branch will meet in June. In short, it is impossible at such short notice to organise any meaningful discussion across the range of policy issues set out in the six policy consultation documents issued tonight, in the time allowed by Peter Hain. 

I have already called for the NEC to propose and vote for a motion of confidence in Peter here. (Ditto NEC constituency section wannabes.) In the light of his letter to e-literate members, do you need any further convincing? 

 

Labour Party democracy: that pasty feeling

No, with elections in five weeks' time, now is not the time to write discursively about Labour Party internal democracy. So I will. 

An early morning coffee with Labour Democratic Network chair, Andy Howell, prompted a heated debate about the politics of pasties, petrol cans and parliamentary selections in no particular order. We were ensconced in a newly opened italian-style cafe in that Labour managerial stronghold, the London Borough of Hackney.

Did Labour leader, Ed Miliband further Labour values by being filmed queuing with Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer Ed Balls for sausage rolls in Gregg's, Britain's biggest baker and therefore victim of the proposed imposition of value-added tax (VAT) to freshly baked products such as pasties?  

As a symbol of how a Conservative government led by a pack of multi-millionaires is out of touch with the vast majority of 'hard-working' people, the pasty tax is resonating. Recent measures of public opinion suggest support for the coalition is waning. Labour's challenge as ever is how does is rebuild trust with the electorate, and establish a membership/campaigning base in every electoral ward nationwide?

In that regard, like the ambient temperature test for taxing the pasty, I find myself going hot and cold when it comes to judging the Labour Party's commitment to democratic socialism. Inevitably to my mind it's going to have to get personal.

Ed Miliband has evidently given up any pretence of believing what forms the first sentence of Chapter 1, Clause IV of the Party's Constitution, namely:

The Labour Party is a democratic socialist party.

Since his election he has accepted the Labour First/Progress domination of the party machine as a given and continued with Blairite top-down practices marginalising the National Executive Committee, and the National Policy Forum, and taking the practices of personal preferment and patronage to new depths. Abolishing shadow cabinet elections, and retaining the appointed and unconstitutional posts of Party Chair and Deputy Chairs are but two examples.

Among his advisors, egging him on in this anti-democratic fashion, is Lucy Powell, now deputy Chief of Staff in the Leader's office. She was the unsuccessful prospective parliamentary candidate for Manchester Withington in 2010. She is still a member of the National Policy Forum representing the North West who reportedly ran on the Labour First/Progress ticket. Yesterday, she was short-listed by the NEC panel as one of four for the prospective parliamentary candidate selection in Manchester Central. (Sitting MP, Tony Lloyd, is standing down to run as Police and Crime Commissioner for Manchester.) Andy and I wondered whether local members in Manchester might be interested to know about her role in, for example, trying to stop Iain McNicol being selected as General Secretary, preferring the Labour Party Deputy General Secretary, Chris Lennie, instead?

Maybe the majority of Manchester Central members would approve of her actions in that regard, as well as keeping the unconstitutional posts of Party Chair, and Deputy and scrapping shadow cabinet elections. But how would they ever know? Of course, party rules forbid personal attacks in internal elections. However, for any member concerned about the rise and rise of the political class in the Labour Party, we have got to ask ourselves how is that trend ever going to be reversed?

If the nasty party can get a media pasting for taxing the pasty baker. The Labour Party nomenklatura can expect one for playing the 'known quantity' gambit. Nudge, nudge, local woman, local champion, backed Ed Miliband for Leader, we need a woman MP in Manchester...... That was the line being promoted by local fixer, Kevin Peel on Twitter last night. Actually, there are women - Hazel Blears and Kate Green - representing Labour in neighbouring Salford, and Stretford and Urmston. But those constituencies are not in the City of Manchester. Geddit?!

By the way the shortlist includes another woman, Rose Battle. So if the 'let's have a woman MP in Manchester' bandwagon gains pace - local members have a choice. Time will tell whether she was included as a candidate on merit or a make-weight as we saw with so many 'Selections in the Spotlight' in the run up to the 2010 General Election campaign.

Local members will never be sure whether they are being used until they demand local control of selections of Labour candidates for elected office, with regional or national oversight.

Sadly, for the foreseeable future I fear party democracy is in the same place as an untaxable pasty - the deep freeze. 

Will Labour's NEC take Executive Board plan lying down?

Labour's National Executive Committee (NEC) meets today in the wake of news of the membership and chair of the unconstitutional Executive Board. My own jaundiced views were posted here. Labour List provided details here. Dan Hodges added spice here and The Guardian played catchup here.

Will anyone have the temerity to challange the proposals and demand a debate and vote(s)?

I haven't bothered to ring any of my sources. There is not a mention of the Executive Board on either of the blog sites of Johanna Baxter or Luke Akehurst - the two most energetic member representatives on the NEC in the blogosphere. (Note they are members' representatives, not CLP representatives under the one-member-one-vote election system.) 

What are its Terms of Reference? When were they agreed? How does this body relate to the NEC Business Board?

If Dan Hodges' account is to be believed, the Labour Party made a £1.7mln loss in 2011. That suggests that the Business Board lost its grip on the management accounts early on in the last financial year, while m'lord Collins was still carrying the title of general secretary, but Alicia Kennedy was actually in charge.

If nothing else, I hope some highly pointed questions are being asked about who was managing the money. Remind me who is the Treasurer?

But I'm not holding my breath. Just keeping a firm hand on my pocket book when it comes to donating money to the Labour Party. As for the idea of an unelected business person chairing an unconstitutional body within a democratic socialist political party, I have only one thing to say - stand for election after you have got your proposals authorised by the constitutionally designated body - the NEC. Otherwise make your excuses and leave those responsible to put the Labour Party's affairs in order.

Break-ins, flashbacks and ballot boxes: Ed get's an inkling

News of forced entry in the Leader of the Labour Party's office in the Palace of Westminster reminded me of the infamous ballot box and voting paper tampering during the Erith and Thamesmead prospective parliamentary candidate selection in 2009.

Leader, Ed Miliband was reported earlier today by the Press Association, picked up by the Huffington Post here as being 'deeply concerned'. Quite rightly so too.

...a senior Labour source said the motivation behind the break-in remained to be established and that it was still unclear if anything had been taken.

"We do not know whether anything was taken. We do not know the motivation for this crime," the source said.

"But we are deeply concerned that this can take place within Palace of Westminster."

Before the moment passes Ed and his aides might care to think back to the events surrounding that notorious ballot box incident in Labour Party HQ in Victoria Street. In that instance, the London Regional office seized control of a prospective parliamentary candidate selection from Erith and Thamesmead constituency labour party, in controversial circumstances.  A former general secretary Margaret McDonagh was actively promoting the candidacy of Georgia Gould. The ballot box for postal ballots was transported to Victoria Street for 'safe-keeping'. Mysteriously, the seal on the box was broken inside HO. (For the avoidance of doubt, I am not suggesting any link between that former general secretary and the need to void all previously cast postal ballots.)

In this instance there was an investigation, including DNA sampling. The identity of the tamperer is known. But the Labour Party machine decided to take no action, and the NEC proved itself to be powerless. So an event involving a complete breach of trust between paid staff and lay members remains an open sore inside this self-proclaimed 'democratic socialist party' of ours.

Nor should the lessons of that ballot box crime be lost in the context of the power struggle ongoing between the Leader's office, Labour Party staff and the new general secretary. The perpetrators of repeated offences against party democracy are still in the employment of the Labour Party - in the Leader's office, and Labour Party HQ. No more crocodile tears, please.

For a brief dispassionate overview of the E&T selection this is how the BBC reported it. 

Beware of former General Secretaries bearing advice

Former General Secretary, Peter Watt has offered his reflections on the tug of war between the Leader of the Labour Party's office, Head Office Staff and the new General Secretary on Labour Uncut.

Ever anxious to safeguard his reputation, Peter makes claims about his role introducing the concept of governance to the National Executive Committee, and by implication the Leader's Office.

I have penned a comment, which at the time of writing is still await approval by Labour Uncut's moderator.

So here it is:

Dear Peter

Before your claims of introducing governance to the Labour Party's NEC  become enshrined in urban myth, I suggest you read a copy of the Development Trust Association (now Locality)'s Early Warning Guide. 

I declare an interest as a member of the working group that compiled the key performance indicators for executives and non-executives.

I also declare an interest as a former member of the NEC whose first requests having been elected were a) to attend the Warwick 2 National Policy Forum as an observer - refused by the then acting General Secretary Chris Lennie, and b) copies of the 2008 budget, management accounts and staff/organisation organigram(s) - refused by the then Director of Finance and Compliance, Roy (now Lord) Kennedy married to former deputy General Secretary, Alicia Kennedy.

Good governance comes from each member understanding their roles, and responsibilities. Is there any evidence that anyone either in the Leader's Office or the National Executive Committee has a grasp of the most basic principles of governance - good or bad?

I'd be happy to be enlightened.

Yours with happy memories of being told by you some years ago that I was part of the problem

Peter Kenyon

In a word - beware.

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.

 

Labour's NEC needs to get a grip on IT

Who is responsible for the Labour Party spend on IT? Any NEC member claiming to put members first can not get to grips with representing members without an overview of who does what currently, or how money is being spent and accounted for. 

As a member of the NEC representing members for two years from October 2008 until September 2010, I failed to get the General Secretary to send me a copy of the staff organogram, budget or management accounts, let alone make an impression on its IT offering. With one exception. I suggested a link on Membersnet to elected representatives. That might appear a small matter when the party's finances are so strained. 

Earlier this week I had another look at the Labour Party's public presence on the Internet, and its offerings for members - Membersnet and MemberCentre with a view to provoking a reaction in high quarters. Remarkably little thought or effort appears to have been put into a radical overhaul of these facilities to enable the member friendly, inclusive, outward looking party some of use have aspired to for decades, and now set out in the Labour Democratic Network's Manchester Declaration.

Symptomatic of problems on the NEC are the reactions I got from two CLP representatives (who shall remain nameless) about the Messaging facility in Membersnet:

I find membersnet a complete pain and never use it unless I have to. 

The other said on Twitter:

I didn't get it! And you have my e-mail...

to which I replied

<NEC has governance oversight 4 mmbrs?

Which leads me back to my opening question: Who is responsible for the Labour Party spend on IT? As a result of my interventions earlier this week, I think the lists of National Policy Forum (NPF) representatives by region are now up to date. But I suspect there are no links to our elected representatives from membersnet. If there are, they may be being filtered by region ie. a member in London region can not communicate with an NPF representative in Scotland. 

In the forthcoming NEC elections, I will be casting my vote for anyone who (among other strategic issues) can get a grip on the IT and drive a process to make Labour's public/member web-presence an engine for electoral success in May 2012 and beyond.

For the record: Below are extracts from my Sent and In boxes in Messaging -

Sent Messages

	Sent to:	Subject
	Jack Falkingham	Test @ 3 days ago
	Joanne Milligan	A better future for Britain @ 18 weeks and 4 days ago
	Callum Munro	A better future for Britain @ 18 weeks and 4 days ago
	Callum Munro	A better future for Britain @ 18 weeks and 5 days ago
	Ken Livingstone	A better future for Britain @ 18 weeks and 5 days ago
	Johanna Baxter	A better future for Britain @ 18 weeks and 5 days ago
	Luke Akehurst	A better future for Britain @ 18 weeks and 5 days ago
	Christine Shawcroft	A better future for Britain @ 18 weeks and 5 days ago
	Eleanor Reeves	A better future for Britain @ 18 weeks and 5 days ago
	Ann Black	A better future for Britain @ 18 weeks and 5 days ago
	Joanne Milligan	A better future for Britain @ 18 weeks and 5 days ago

Message inbox

Page 1234567 of 7 | next »

	Last message	Subject
	Joanne Milligan	A better future for Britain @ 16 weeks and 4 days ago
	Peter Kenyon	A better future for Britain @ 18 weeks and 4 days ago
	Joanne Milligan	Test @ 22 weeks and 2 days ago

 

Iain McNicol's first 100 days - will he herald cultural change?

While some mourn the passing of New Labour co-architect Philip Gould, I have been wrestling with the practical problems of organising a branch meeting outside St. Paul's Cathedral, and a faulty national membership database.

Membership services are not a central feature of the current Labour Party apparatus. After an exchange with Johanna Baxter on Twitter earlier today, it occurred to me that the clock is ticking for our new general secretary, Iain McNicol.

My colleagues in the Labour Democratic Network share a vision of the Labour Party, which is set out in our Manchester Declaration. Iain McNicol was served up Refounding Labour by the old New Labour guard. They were desperate to consolidate anti-democractic centralist practices as the prevailing force inside the party, and the majority of the national executive committee fell for it.

Contradictions between the stated ambitions of the leadership to attempt to run a Labour candidate for every public office anywhere in the country - the so called 'No no-go areas' policy has to be matched with an organisational/fundraising strategy (short/medium/long-term) to enable Labour vote maximisation.

That is one of the many challenges facing our new GS, and his first 100 days are up on 9 January or thereabouts (assuming his official start date was 1 October). Fixing the IT system to support local organisation is critical to enabling that shift in culture to being member friendly, and improve retention and recruitment. Of course, there is a lot more to the job than that, but it would help.

Which reminds me, I must get the ward notices out to members still relying on the post. None of them currently attend meetings, but it's their right to know what's going on in their branch, even if they don't trust Head Office with their eMail address. (That's something us branch secretaries just have to live with, for the moment.)

Bring on the future, Mr McNicol.