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.

 

 

Angela Eagle sets out her stall

Congratulations to Angela Eagle on having her name put forward by Labour Leader Ed Miliband to replace Peter Hain as chair of the National Policy Forum.

I worked with her on the LabOUR Commission in 2006/07. This is her Foreword to the Commission's Interim Report - Renewal a two-way process for the 21st century, published in 2007:

Foreword – Angela Eagle MP

Labour has to renew its financial, organisational and political vigour to secure a fourth term in Government . The loss of four million votes and half of our membership since 1997 sounds the warning bells clearly enough. Political culture is changing and we must respond. The era of Labour as an over centralised ‘command party’ - see Figure 1 opposite - which replaced the chaos of the 1980s with a winning formula, has now become counter-productive. It has bred cynicism and stifled activism. The urgent question now is: What should replace it? The forthcoming Leader/Deputy Leader elections will help to define this new era for our Party. The LabOUR Commission’s Interim recommendations presented here are based onthe findings of the first representative study of Labour Party members’ views since Labour’s landslide victory in 1997. Both lapsed and current members were contacted. A crucial lesson from our research is that Labour in Government has not trusted Party members enough. Our research findings show that the Labour Party has changed. Labour Party members are pragmatic and they want Labour to be in Government. They understand how important it is to win. In return, they expect to be trusted to help shape policies to win support from the communities Labour seeks to serve.This Interim Report suggests a model of Party organisation which will serve Labour well in the future. As a Party seeking to empower all sections of our society, we know we cannot rely on the kind of mercenary multi-millionaire donors now currently filling Tory party coffers. Labour will always need its activists who go door knocking whatever the weather. Members, both individuals and those from our affiliated organisations, are Labour's most precious resource. Our interim recommendations should be seen against the background of rising and wasteful election spending on billboard advertising, and remote professional canvassing. That is why all year round election spending limits are essential. This would create a level playing field between the main political parties for the first time in British political history.As a member of the Labour Party’s National Executive Committee, I know we have it within our power to reinvigorate Labour and remake our Party structures with members at the centre and accountability re-established. People join the Labour Party to change the world and make our society a better place for us all to live in. I hope our Interim Report will provide fresh hope to Labour Party members throughout Britain. Our recommendations show how renewal is possible, and that under new leadership it must be achieved by a genuine dialogue.

May 2007

The full report is available here.

Gloves off, time for a no confidence vote in Peter Hain

Why Peter Hain?

For a fuller explanation, please refer to my article, Labour - a lost cause?  in the latest edition of Chartist - the bimonthly for democratic socialism. The piece was written two weeks before the May elections, and I admit I under-estimated the capacity of the Scottish Labour Party to grasp victory from the jaws of defeat. But that should not detract from the thrust of my thesis about the danger to Labour of professional politicians, whom Peter Hain epitomises.

I concluded:  

While the Labour Party continues to be dominated by the salaried and aspiring political class, its ability to 'reconnect' will be compromised... I'll be voting for any NEC or NPF candidate willing to move an NEC vote of no confidence against Peter Hain, and/or run a campaign to rebuild paid membership electoral ward by electoral ward, and give members an effective say in policy making.

With the benefit of hindsight, I should have gone back to his pamphlet, The Future Party, published by the trade union funded think-tank Catalyst in 2004, and done a proper demolition job.

For a more recent account of Peter's Refounding success, check out his interview last month in The Australian:  Brotherly advice: reform or die 

Last year, Hain authored a 10,000 word report, Refounding Labour, for Labour leader Ed Miliband that canvassed systemic reforms to revitalise the party in a changing political world.

When you have finished spluttering into your cup of Horlicks, you will be aware that the Labour Party is far too polite to allow a motion of no confidence in any of the 'self-select'. But if anyone is any doubt about whether Peter Hain should go or not check out the next set of Partnership in Power policy documents and arrangements for the National Policy Forum in Birmingham in June.

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. 

The race for NEC votes is ON

Tonight I received the following from Labour First/Progress slate candidate for the NEC, Luke Akehurst:

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Dear CLP Secretary,

I hope this will be useful information for you:

Organisation Committee Report

The Organisation Committee of the Labour Party’s National Executive
Committee met on 13 March and considered a number of important reports
about internal Party democracy.

The key item was an early heads-up from Peter Hain about the direction
in which the review of Labour’s policy-making structures initiated as
part of “Refounding Labour” is headed.

Key features of the proposals sketched out by Peter were:
•    Moving to a 5 year policy-making cycle from the current 3 year one,
and away from the “Warwick” style climax to the process.
•    More readable, shorter, accessible policy documents for members to comment on.
•    These would be circulated each year for party units to make
submissions in reaction to, and then each Policy Commission would
draft a report with options and recommendations. These reports would
be debated at a National Policy Forum (NPF) meeting each summer. The
NPF would then send the revised documents to Annual Conference for
agreement.
•    Party units will be able to submit a limited number of amendments.
There will be a “duty to consult” i.e. party units submitting
amendments will need to show they have sounded out stakeholders before
raising an issue. Issues raised which show clear evidence of community
support may be given more weight.
•    In the final year of the cycle, Policy Commissions would draw up an
overarching document based on the policy documents agreed in previous
years. Again this would be shorter than the current style of document.
•    Labour’s Policy Programme would consist of the final year documents
agreed by the policy commissions, NPF, Joint Policy Committee (JPC)
and Annual Conference. This would form the basis of the manifesto
signed off by the Clause V meeting between NEC and Shadow Cabinet.
•    The role of the JPC will be strengthened. It will commission and
agree policy documents, work to increase participation in policy
debate, oversee the amendments process and agree options papers to go
to Annual Conference.
•    Policy Commissions will consider submissions from party units and
come to a consensus view on whether to incorporate them into policy
documents.
•    NPF members not elected to a Policy Commission will now be able to
attend one as an observer.
•    Annual Conference will get to consider alternative positions, not
just one take-it-or-leave it document.
•    There will be greater use of technology to facilitate discussion and
to feedback to party units about their submissions. NPF members will
also be involved in giving feedback. All NPF members will get greater
information about the work of the JPC and the Policy Commissions.
•    There will be an online audit trail to track what has happened to amendments.
•    Greater communication of NPF activity and support for party units to
get involved.
•    Policy Commissions to look more at current issues via conference
calls and online debate.

This all seemed fairly sensible and consistent with members’ calls for
a more transparent process.

This was just an initial discussion – further discussion will happen
at the NEC, leading to rule changes going to Annual Conference this
year.

The Committee also agreed:
•    To trigger a further 14 early parliamentary selections (all 3 seats
in Brighton & Hove based on the anticipated new boundaries, Carlisle,
Redcar, Crewe & Nantwich, Gillingham & Rainham, Milton Keynes N,
Reading E, Bristol S, Gloucester, Cannock Chase, Stafford, Tamworth &
Staffs).
•    A timetable for selecting mayoral candidates where referendums
result in a “yes” vote (freeze date for being a member with voting
rights of 5 May, short-listing by panels of a mixture of Regional
Board and CLP reps on 16 May, OMOV ballot goes out on 25 May, hustings
meetings by 10 June, ballot closes on 13 June and results declared on
15 June). The same ballot dates will apply to the NEC and NPF
elections and the Police Commissioner selections.
•    Labour MPs selected as Mayoral or Police Commissioner candidates
will have to resign from the Commons and trigger by-elections.
•    Guidelines for reorganising CLPs in January 2013 on the new boundaries.
•    Model candidate contracts which involve a commitment to a lot of campaigning!
•    Labour Movement for Europe and Labour Finance & Industry Group are
to become formal affiliates of the Party.

An NPF meeting is likely to be held on 16/17 June.

Luke Akehurst
CLP Rep, NEC

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Note: an NPF meeting is likely to be held on 16/17 June after the ballot papers are sent to members to vote for their NPF representatives, and without any guarantee that it will not, to quote Luke previously, be another rally for the nomenklatura.

0-10 Luke for addressing the key issue for members - having a say.

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

 

Silence peasants, in the Labour Party members' views don't count

Don't take my word for it. I have just caught up with Ann Black's latest NEC report. This is available in parts (for easier reading) on the Labour Democratic Network website.

On policy making she wrote:

Policy-making seems to have moved not only beyond the NEC but beyond the national policy forum and conference.  Near the end I discovered four glossy booklets entitled “Towards a new economy”, “Britain’s role in the world”, “Restoring responsibility, strengthening our communities” and “Fulfilling the promise of Britain”. Maybe the papers came from the elusive shadow cabinet working groups.  They appear hastily compiled, with inconsistencies, identical quotes attributed to different people, and repeated paragraphs, but they make interesting reading. 

This begs a critical question. Why should any CLP bother to send delegates to Conference? As for hapless National Policy Forum delegates, what is the point?

There are remedies. The NEC could reshape Conference and make it a deliberative assembly. Until CLPs organise, nothing will change. Except of course the number of CLPs sending delegates to Conference will probably continue to decline. Just like membership.

Labour's unbeatable offer to members - submit a motion

As a constituency labour party (CLP) secretary, I have recently received an invitation from Head Office on behalf of the CLP to submit a contemporary motion for consideration at Annual Conference 2011. 

On first sight this is an excellent and timely reminder of a welcome opportunity. Members getting to have a say. But as the worldly wise know, read the small print. So here's the section of the HO memo relating to how the Conference Arrangements Committee (CAC) will decide what is valid and what is not.

 2. CAC's criteria for deciding if a motion is contemporary

In deciding if a contemporary motion is valid (contemporary) the CAC will consider the following points:

• Is the issue already addressed in the Conference agenda?
• Has the issue been dealt with by the NPF and Policy Commissions in their reports to Conference?
• Could the issue have been sent to the NPF, Policy Commissions or the NEC before they published their work?

A motion will be deemed to be contemporary if:

a) It is 250 words or less and deals with one subject.

b) It deals with a topic which arose after the publication of the reports of the National Policy Forum (NPF), Policy Commissions or National Executive Committee on 31 July or has not been substantively addressed in those reports. Copies of the reports will be sent to delegates in early September. In the meantime a list of the subjects dealt with by the policy commissions in 2011 is enclosed together with a summary of the contents of the NEC Report to 2011 Conference.

c) The issue could not otherwise have been raised through the Partnership in Power process.

d) It does not seek to bypass either the National Policy Forum policy-making or National Executive Committee decision-making processes or to overturn or revisit the Party Policy Programme as agreed through the Partnership in Power process, including issues defeated at the NPF which failed to achieve the status of an alternative position at the NPF.

The annual reports of the National Executive Committee, the National Policy Forum and the Policy Forums will be sent to delegates in early September. In the meantime please find attached lists of the topics to be covered on the Conference Agenda and in the various reports.

 

All clear? Now, I thought the NPF failed to agree anything at its meeting in Wrexham on 25 June 2011, as a report on policy was tabled too late to be given proper consideration. So does this mean anything goes? I think we should be told.

In any event, I am a bit puzzled by HO's timetable. They are proposing to send the appropriate reports to delegates, not CLP secretaries. So what I am meant to tell our members ahead of their branch meetings in the first week of September?. For the eagle eyed and logistically minded, that means my missive has to be despatched to branch secretaries before the August Bank holiday.

Ooh, I am going to have fun explaining this in plain language in my next Secretary's letter to branches, and retaining the will to live.