Peter Kenyon

No thanks from Labour's GS Iain McNicol as Refounding Labour cuts bite

As previously reported the Labour Party Head Office is moving to Brewer's Green, earlier today I learned Friday is the day. As if further evidence of couldn't organise a piss-up in a brewery were needed, I also received an eMail from General Secetary, Iain McNicol setting out changes to my constituency labour party (CLP) income. The proportion of membership subscriptions being remitted to local parties is being slashed in some instances from one-third to nearly one-thirtieth. 

The changes arise from the notorious top down stitchup agreed at last year's party conference mislabelled Refounding Labour. They mask a lamentable and wholly avoidable failure on the part of the leadership and the National Executive Committee to rethink the way the Labour Party pays its way as a mainstream political party. Instead we have more hankering after state-funding (see Party funding rules face overhaul as talks continue http://bit.ly/Hx4jw0) , and a clampdown on local parties' finances to fill the holes in Head Office accounts. To add insult to injury, there was not a word of thanks, appreciation or recognition of any effort expended by members administering the party on the ground.

I had expected better when Iain was elected. Oh, BTW the citation should have been 'Dear Comrade', not 'Dear friend'. 

 

An alternative to state funding - electoral ward political party branch budgeting

This is as stoggy as a hot cross bun. Read no further. Debate about how political parties should be funded has been rekindled by yet another scandal. The latest involves cash for access and co-treasurer of the Conservative Party, Peter Cruddas, who promptly resigned. Attempts by Labour to score political points are unlikely to impress the vast majority of the electorate. Most of the debate focuses on the motives of donors and the base practices of party fund-raisers. Few if any commentators, let alone voters, give a moment's thought to when, where and how often political parties need money.

Democratic societies need political parties. They are generally the only institutions capable of forming governing bodies at whatever level - national, regional or local government. (There are some worrying departures in the European Union following the Eurozone crisis, but that should not detract from the norm.) If you want power, or a handle on power, or to enable others to exercise power on your behalf, then joining a political party is the way to go. There was a time in the UK when money played a direct part in securing a seat in Parliament. The notorious "Spendthrift election" came in Northamptonshire in 1768, when three earls spent over ₤100,000 each to win a seat. These blessed isles saw the light about politics with the introduction of rules to limit spending on elections at a local ward/constituency level. Though it took over 200 years to introduce limits on national spending in General Elections. Such rules are now bundled with a regulatory body, the Electoral Commission (EC), into law. People at the centre of party politics came to see the legislation enact by Labour in 2000 as the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act as a curse. That includes Labour. It is worth dwelling for a moment on why. The EC took a rather silly view about the role of treasurers in political parties, placing what seemed to be overly onerous requirements even on constituencies accounts. The absence of anyone with any experience of active party membership on the Commission itself didn't help. But it did have some sound ideas, which really irked the professional political class. In its requirements for annual reporting by registered political parties, the EC suggested membership should be included in the annual Statement of Accounts. As one if its first decisions, the Commission embarked on an Inquiry into the funding of political parties. In its recommendations published in December 2004, the EC concluded there was no case for state-funding, but that there were issues for political parties concerning membership and small donations. Given the presumptions of the political class, and that includes Labour's upper echelons, the EC recommendatons were buried. The then Leader of the House of Commons Peter Hain failed to make parliamentary time available. Yes, the same Peter Hain who presided over the bungled exercise to Refound Labour last year, adn who is still in an influential party position as chair of the National Policy Forum.

This is unfinished business. Labour doesn't have to wait for the other political parties. It has an opportunity to reconnect with its core vote and build the Party on the Ground.

This is not a hopeless cause, or one lacking possible traction either with the new general secretary or members of the parliamentary labour party. There is a strong case for looking at the issue of political party funding through the other end of the telescope. You just have to ask: how many Labour members of parliament elected in 2010 won their seats thanks to above average levels of local campaigning activity undertaken by volunteers, with or without professional organisational support? In which seats did Labour win a higher percentage of the vote than the national average? 

What the 2010 general election campaign highighted for Labour were different models of local political organisation -  an often cited example was Birmingham, Edgbaston where the sitting MP Gisela Stuart secured re-election with a slightly lower share of the vote and a modest 1.3% swing to Conservative from Labour. This compared with a national swing against Labour of 6.2%. Much more deserving of study is the result in Oxford East where sitting MP Andrew Smith was relected with a 6.5% increased share of the vote and a swing TO Labour of 4.2%. Whereas Stuart's victory was MP/organiser campaign led, Smith's was underpinned by an active local party and a local councillor-base/Labour group that had seen off the Liberal Demcrats on the city council. This is not an exact science. But it is a pointer to the future.

Layering community activity, and the way it is organised and accounted for is critical to rebuilding the Party on the Ground, winning future elections and burying the threat to our democratic socialist party from the Tories and the Liberal Democrats. A possible place to start is using the national agreed limits to start building election-cycle budgets and fundraising strategies to match political goals overtime. After the May elections, of course. Someone in your CLP will be filling in the forms for election expenses. Those limits matter, both for accounting and future budgeting. Think about it. 

Bradford West - a lifeline or noose for Labour leader Ed Miliband?

Ed Miliband interviewed in today's Observer newspaper just might be starting to ask pertinent questions about the Labour Party on the ground. According to the paper's political editor, Toby Helm:

At the top of a list of questions he will want to answer is why Labour's canvassing, on the eve of polling, was still showing the party way ahead. "Even by late Wednesday our canvass returns were suggesting that we would win."

The failure to gauge what was happening is part of a wider challenge Miliband wants to address – how to ensure Labour engages better with local people and supporters.

I should point out that I am not the Labour Party's leading expert on canvassing. But I have done my fair share in the last 40 years. Local organisational capacity was my starting point in the Twittersphere as soon as it became evident an upset was in prospect on Thursday night/Friday morning of last week. I asked Fabian Society deputy general secretary @marcusaroberts who was minded to cross his fingers for a Labour retain:

Done CLP audit / electoral ward, membership / campaigning / fundraising capacity? No point crossing fingers.#bradfordwest

This provoked a twitterslapdown from Labour First campaigning guru Luke Akehurst:

@PeterKenyon the Bradford West CLP is extremely active and large so problem not organisational

That compounds the issues that our Leader is going to have to review, and not before time in my view. If a constituency labour party (CLP) that is "extremely active" and "large" to quote Luke can't spot a looming loss of 10,000 votes, then it is not unreasonable to speculate that the Party is suffering systemic failure. NB Luke is seeking re-election to Labour's National Executive Committee. 

Labour has invested heavily in IT support for voter identification in New Labour speak or canvassing as, I'm glad to see, Ed called it in his interview. So it should be possible to analyse the canvass returns by electoral ward/date/canvasser. Let's be clear this is an art, not a science. Critical dates for reviewing Labour's standing might be pre-last date for postal vote applications, last day of canvassing. What were the canvass results (if any) from postal voters? The overarching problem in any canvassing is quality control - filtering out canvasser's inclinations (for example: to pose leading questions, record what they want to hear, discount what they don't want to hear) is impossible at the point of data entry.

High levels of volunteer commitment and dedication are required to reduce the risk of error, and maintain records in a timely fashion on Contact Creator. I would be surprised if any canvassing of representative samples was conducted in key wards in the final week of the campaign. (I have vivid memories of straw poll sampling Labour voters in Brownwood Ward in the last days of the 1992 general election campaign and picking up switching in the wake of the Tories' devastating Tax Bombshell advertising. By then it was too late and we were doomed, as it turned out to another five years' in opposition.)

If nothing else, Ed will learn more about canvassing. He has also promised to revisit the constituency and listen. Very commendable, but who does he listen to? People 'volunteered' by party staff, or a representative sample of Labour core voters as recorded on the canvass returns?

Next there is that bizarre message to staff co-signed by Ed and party general secretary, Iain McNicol issued the day after the by-election. There was no mention of volunteers. What on earth is going in their heads? What more eloquent proof of just how disconnected the Leadership is than a read of this indictment of Labour's political class? We know there are problems with party staff, but this herogram is absurd in the circumstances.

Our staff in Bradford were fantastic. As always our staff give everything for Labour and Bradford West was no exception. Staff can hold their heads high about their performance, we shoulder these problems as one party and we fight back as one party. 

What is it about the Labour Party that performance management doesn't apply to party staff? Then you realise the Leadership is so wedded to the paid-hands model of modern political organisation that with the London Mayoral elections now only weeks ago they have got to keep staff on side. The party on the ground (i.e. volunteers) remain a resource to be developed.

So those of us who thought Ed might be able to save the Labour Party are going to have to go along with the warm words, and, as Marcus did on Thursday night, keep our fingers crossed for 3 May. But that should not detract from the need for a radical new approach to party organisation based on building up from the electoral ward level the Labour Party's volunteer-based membership/campaigning/fundraising capacity with professional support (not control).

If the Bradford West inquest leads Ed to that conclusion, it will represent a lifeline. Continued dependence on the Refounding Labour command and control professional praetorian guard model will prove a noose.

 

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.

No Labour CLP NEC incumbent deserves re-election, unless....

Labour's future as a democratic socialist party as far as I'm concerned hangs on whether it delivers 21st century tools enabling members to have a say.

Yesterday's proceedings of the Organisation Sub-Committee reported first by Luke Akehurst and posted here, suggest that the culture remains top down. While there were words expressed about the use of technology:

•    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.

they are hedged with conditionality.

So the challenge for all members of the NEC CLP section seeking re-election on whichever slate, or none is have you agreed a specification and budget for that technology with a delivery date? Will the policy documents be published in a format that enables any member to see any proposed changes by any other member? Will representative sample voting facilities be included? 

If not, none of you will be getting my vote when the ballot papers arrive to enable me to cast my vote in the 2012 CLP NEC elections.

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.

Awaiting the piss-up in Brewer's Yard

Crikey, it's four and a half weeks since I last posted a blog. Was it the weather? Was it the moon? Was it a branch in my constituency labour party that must remain nameless? Was it the polls? Whatever, it was has passed. At last news about those six director level appointments at Labour Party HQ and a lot more. They were first advertised in early January here. They are due to move shortly from Victoria Street further west of Parliament to Brewer's Yard. (You couldn't make it up!). 

I can reveal that some high-placed Labour Party sources see these appointments as a litmus test of Iain McNicol's grip as General Secretary. There was a three-way power struggle between Iain, his outgoing Deputy Alicia Kennedy and the Leader's officer. Iain you will recall was not Ed Miliband's candidate for the job. His election in favour of the well-oiled machine hand, Chris Lennie, followed the elevation to the peerage of m'Lord (formerly Ray) Collins.

Alicia Kennedy, de facto General Secretary under Ray Collins, whose role as Deputy General Secretary has been written out of the new structure, is appointed to a new post as special advisor to the appointed Deputy Chair Tom Watson. Chris Lennie, the other former Deputy General Secretary, will continue to assist in external relations and fundraising. Now the transfer window has closed, we must ask: is it possible that the Leader's office will be pulling the strings leaving McNicol wondering whether his move from the GMB was wise?

Update: News of skirmishes from the Leader's Office (aka Eastern Front) on Left Futures : Leader’s office oversteps mark with Labour Party HQ http://bit.ly/wQ3WEk

Update: A different take here Vive la résistance la rue Victoria! « Labour Uncut http://bit.ly/wCRLgC which reports:

In the words of one staffer on Friday, “Iain [McNicol] is basically now a glorified head of HR”.

Update: The whole debacle is reduced to an even baser level in the Telegraph: The Labour Party is tearing itself apart, and Len McCluskey is preparing a silent coup  http://soc.li/guJfMZK