Peter Kenyon

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.

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? 

 

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.

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. 

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.)

 

 

Wrestling with Refounding Labour rule changes, contempt and obligation

It's that time of the month when invitations to forthcoming local Labour Party collective gatherings for political debate and organisational matters (aka agendas) need to be crafted and despatched. Technically, I'm in breach of Standing Orders as they should have been despatched two days ago. But hey ho, we are where we are. Neither the chair nor myself as secretary will actually be at the meeting next week. He's found a volunteer to chair, and I'm still hoping to find one to do the minutes.

Hanging over the proceedings like a large black cloud in my mind is Refounding Labour. The new Labour Party 2011 Rule Book requires our branch and constituency annual general meetings to be postposed until after the May 2012 elections. As the official guidance was inconveniently received well after the November monthly branch meetings, the membership as a whole has yet to be notified. Most branches if they meet at all do not hold business meetings in December. The first branch meetings in 2012 would normally be AGMs, with the CLP AGM at the end of February. 

There is an impeccable logic to that cycle. Nominations made at January branch meetings can be circulated as widely as possible to members for February meetings, prior to elections at the end of February. In addition, financial years like the national party run January to December. Given the nature of branch and CLP finances in Cities of London and Westminster, it is straightforward closing the books in time for AGMs. So why change? Ah, now the Rules say so. 

It is that sort of level of detail that passed Peter Hain, the architect of Refounding Labour, by.

Following our July branch meeting, I wrote to him with a copy of an emergency resolution calling for a Special Conference to give members time to consider the proposals, rather than have them bounced through the 2011 Annual Conference.

He wrote back: 

Sorry we simply don't agree because I thought you like me want reforms to empower grass roots members and turn Labour from an obsolete Party like our rivals into a popular movement relevant to today's politics. That's what RF aims to do and you can help make it happen.

Well, I'm sorry Peter, we live on difference planets. If we can't have an AGM at a time convenient to local members - that's disempowerment.

As a branch and CLP secretary it is my duty to encourage and promote adherence to the Rule Book. As a senient being, I view the whole Refounding Labour process as ultra vires - an abuse of power by the leadership and the National Executive Committee, especially the trade union section. But I'm disinclined to encourage open defiance. It would just be a drain on what little emotional energy I have left for the Labour Party.

A simple remedy occurs to me which would be for all branch and CLP officers and delegates to tender their resignations in time for elections to be notified to January branch meetings, with a parallel call for nominations. Mine's in the post to myself. In the meantime, I'm also struggling with what the City of London Labour Party response ought to be the threatened eviction of OccuplyLSX. That will have to wait til the constituency papers are done.

 

NEC blue/red/purple sky thinking - the interval

Yesterday, the Labour Party's national executive committee held a strategic review chaired by 'hush-hush, whisper who dares' Michael (the enforcer) Cashman MEP. Maybe I have not been scouring the internet conscientiously enough, but I haven't read a tweet let alone a blog about the outcomes.

Of course, we members are to be fleeced and not heard. From what I hear, Chairman Cashman did not waste a moment from the chair in reminding the hapless NEC that they were not to utter a word about their deliberations.

Fortunately there are some NEC members who are all too aware that they represent members, not vested interests in the European Parliamentary and (Westminster) Parliamentary Labour Parties hoping to hang on to their careers with voluntary help from hapless members and supporters. There are elections for the constituency section of the NEC in 2012.

So I'm looking forward to the accounts of what was discussed on Tuesday. Rumour has it that Chairman Cashman was particularly anxious that the Labour Party should provide support to sitting MPs that DON'T get reselected when the boundary changes proposed by the ConDems come into effect (if their turkeys vote for Christmas). Other gems included Chairman Hain (he of National Policy Forum and Refounding Labour infamy) trumpeting Labour Supporters as the next target in the 'dash for cash'. Excuse me, I thought that Refounding Labour, over which he had presided, had explicitly stated that it was not the Labour Party's aim to milk supporters for cash. But I digress, the priceless gem. I'm told, is that policy czar, sorry Chairman Liam Byrne has covertly produced another set of policy documents....err, did the National Policy Forum even get to discuss his last braindump? He makes astonishing claims in a video clip on the Labour Party website: go to Labour Vision Fresh Ideas

Some of you may recall proposing, voting for and winning majority support for a rule change to elect regional representatives to the National Policy Forum. Do you even know the names of those whom members in your region elected in 2010? Well, in the interval while we wait for our elected CLP representatives on the NEC to risk the wrath of Chairman Cashman by telling us what was discussed on Tuesday, why not ask your NPF reps how you can help shape Labour's future?

That's the offer being made to Labour supporters and they don't have to pay a penny. Makes you think especially when that Direct Debit notice drops on the doormat.

 

Could a CLP boycott of Labour Party conference 2012 force change?

To date no information has been released to the best of my knowledge about how many constituency Labour parties (CLPs) sent delegates to Annual Conference 2011 in Liverpool.

Critical and controversial decisions were taken at that event within hours of being published by former Liberal Party member, now Labour MP Peter Hain. Questions remain about their democratic legitimacy. 

Unlike the early 1980s, Labour Party members are now mainly loyal..to a fault - of letting their elected leader behave like a 16th century monarch. This is regrettable. It, in part, accounts for the inability of the Labour Party to recruit and retain members. There is only a limited number of people who can hold sway in the court of King Ed. So far Labour First led by John Spellar MP, with scribe Luke Akehurst, elected to the NEC last year on a joint ticket with Progess, is doing well. 

Data on previous year's Conference CLP delegates suggests a downward trend, like that of membership from 1997 until the 2010 General Election. A question arising from Conference 2011 is whether the stitchup was so blatant that a significant number of CLPs will decide not to bother to send a delegate to Conference 2012.

Even though I am no longer a member of the National Executive Committee, I was rung by the secretary of a CLP in a solid Tory seat to tell me: "never again", not on the grounds of anti-democratic behaviour by the Labour leadership, but because the CLP financial settlement buried in the minutia of Refounding Labour had blown a massive hole in the CLP's budget to fight local elections.

My own branch is minded for ideological reasons to support a Conference 2012 boycott on the grounds of 'No say, No pay' and that applies as much to membership subscriptions as conference delegate fees. Nothing has been formalised yet. But it would not take much more nonsense from the Leader , Ed Miliband, his appointed shadow cabinet and other party apparachniks to tip the balance in that direction.

Whether that could force change towards the staging of a deliberative assembly at Conference 2012, instead of a Nuremberg-style rally, is a moot point.

 

Killer questions for Peter Hain and why Refounding Labour should be remitted

Ed Miliband's election as Labour Party leader a year ago was hailed by Neil Kinnock with the words, "We've got our Party back". Well how wrong can you be? Party head office (HO) took nearly six months to set out its thinking about the future of the Party. My own advice to Peter Hain MP , the apponted elected chair of the National Policy Forum was to look at the recommendations of the LabOUR Commission set out in an interim report in 2007, and the request to HO to access internal data to look more closely at the state of the Party on the Ground. He ignored the work of the 16 Labour Party members involved, and the evidence based approach adopted.

Two particular questions would have been posed in an audit of membership and organisational data:

1. How many electoral wards in the UK are there no Labour Party members

2. How many electoral wards in the UK has the Labour Party got an established branch that matches those boundaries?

At the time I don't think that anyone could have answered the first question, though I'm happy to be corrected. But I do know that today a report can be generated from Member Centre by any e-literate CLP officer to show in which electoral wards the Labour Party has members and how many.

Labour's electoral success increasingly depends on being able to optimise the vote whereever it is - in parliamentary, devolved assembly, or regional government elections with a PR component. That ought to have underpinned Refounding Labour with data provided by HO to help provide essential reality checks to that debate.

Instead both our new Leader, Ed Miliband and his chosen henchman,Peter Hain who replaced Pat McFadden MP as NPF chair, have allowed themselves to be sidetracked by vested interests. Not I hasten to add in the trade union movement, but in the Parliamentary Labour Party, and the Association of Labour Councillors aided by the siren call of community organisers such as the recently ennobled Maurice Glasman, and the Movement for Change, together with comforting reassurance from Labour First's John Spellar and its secretary and NEC constituency representative, Luke Akehurst.

To the extent that there is anything worth salvaging from the proposals as set out are the sections on Party Finances, and the easing of the HO stranglehold over Young Labour. At least there is a recognition of something completely rotten in the way in which HO has dealt with both membership subscriptions and YL for a long time.

But there is no strategy for rebuilding the party using the resources it has from the electoral ward up. That is/ought to be the basic building block for party organisation and financial strategy. If Party officials haven't got their brains round that in the light of the proposed reduction in parliamentary seat and reviews every parliament, then they should and very quickly. Far too much stress has been placed on CLPs many of which are likely to be wiped out before the next General Election. Too little attention has been paid to organisational/accountability issues for local government.  Refounding Labour has simply caved in to representations from leading sitting councillors to abolish Local Government Committees.

For any inquisitive journalist wanting to dig a little deeper into the harsh realities of this bungled consultation, there are delicate questions about who controls the levies currently paid, for example, by Labour local councillors - the incumbents ie sitting councillors, the LGC or local parties? No prizes for guessing.

The national Labour Party as proposed under Refounding Labour will be a stronger agent for the Leader, incumbent elected representatives and those who aspire to follow in their footsteps. I have come to the view that they are getting the services of volunteer members on the cheap. Members are in effect being asked to help the careers of their elected representative without even getting an on going say in the policies of the party, nationally, regionally or in many cases locally. The proposed levies on the elected representatives need, arguably, to be far higher given the model of party organisation proposed.

Peter Hain in his covering letter sent to all e-literate members yesterday said:

We want to open up our process of making policy, both to give party members greater say and to enable supporters and voters to feed in their ideas, so that the party leadership keeps in much closer touch with public opinion.

Well, I'm sorry, Peter, you had your chance with the Refounding Labour consultation and you failed. Why should we believe you? Inquisitive journalists might want to ask him whether any open and transparent consultation systems were proposed at the outset, and why they were refused, not just once but repeatedly through from October 2010 until the present. We even have the unedifying spectacle of Ed Miliband promising on Twitter on 16 July 2011 that Refounding Labour submissions where possible should be published. We are still waiting with less than 72 hours to go before the proposed soviet-style vote on the Refounding Labour package

Scandalous.

At this very late stage in the process, there are few options open to those with doubts. The Campaign for Labour Party Democracy is circulating an Emergency Resolution calling for the vote to be deferred to end of Conference. My own view is that a Resolution from Bridgend calling for a Special Conference made more sense. Though in the absence of publication of submissions (still), my own branch (City of London) took the view next Spring would be better to allow adequate time for reflection.

Of course, no reasonable loyal member of the Labour Party want to see its Leader publicly humiliated at Conference. Equally, no reasonable loyal member of the Labour Party wants to sacrifice the Party again to save a Leader's face. If we have not learned that from the Blair/Brown era, I fear we are doomed to be out of office for a while longer.

So who's the Party's 'national treasure' who will step up to the rostrum in Liverpool on Sunday afternoon to move remittence of the proposals? If Ed wants to regain the initiative, he could do it himself or be a ready seconder.