Peter Kenyon

Bank fraud squad ring to check a certain payment: Labour Party subs

Just a quick update on the joys of renewing my Labour Party membership. Ring! Ring! Good morning, Mr Kenyon. Tracey here from the HSBC Fraud department. Would you mind answering a few security questions, then we can get going......

Admittedly, there was a payment in Euros in the list from one of my favourite High Speed rail companies, iDTGV offering Paris - Bordeaux -  tix for as low as 19 Euros each way. 

But in the list of recent payments, I couldn't help laughing, was my £21.50 unwaged rate subscription renewal to the Labour Party. Yes, I confessed wearily to Tracey, that's one I'll own up to. To its credit within hours, the Labour Party MemberCentre database now acknowledges that I am paid up.

Whatever insults are being hurled at bankers, I'm most grateful that in this instance due diligence was exercised on my behalf. 

Why I joined Labour: the other side of the coin

I have just renewed my Labour Party membership online. It has taken the Labour Party's systems three months to catch up with my decision to cancel my direct debit. As my avid reader(s) know, I have a thing about accountability. Budgets and management accounts are essential in any organisation for all elected management committee/board members however it is incorporated. I could have resigned in the light of my experiences during my two-year term on the Labour Party's national executive committee (NEC). Instead I have chosen to stay and fight the cause of democratic socialism from inside.

My latest opportunity for gesture politics was to cancel my DD. Eventually a flag appeared on my Membersnet personal details inviting me to renew. An invitation I readily accepted, as having passed my 65th birthday I am entitled to pay at the reduced unwaged rate. It is a pity that the tables for membership rates have not been updated in line with current Conference agreed rates. But where there is a will there's a way. I just ticked 'Other' and manually inserted the current unwaged rate.

Then I was offered an opportunity to tell why I have joined the Labour Party. No warm words from me. So don't expect to see the following entry on the Labour home page. Rather crossly, I stated:

Been a member since 1978. Cancelled DD as do not trust Party with my money. One term on the NEC was sufficient. Having reached retirement age have reduced my membership status to unwaged.

There was no Print Page option so I cannot prove I have 'renewed'.  I will just have to keep a careful watch on my Credit Card account payments. 

As for the 'saving' on my membership, that will be going to my local branch to fund our next local election campaign. Here I have the satisfaction of knowing that the Treasurer has already produced the accounts for 2011, and they were presented to the branch last month, subject to audit. Audited accounts are expected to be available at the next branch meeting tomorrow.

An indelicate question: Labour Party membership - stalled locally, nationally?

Overheard on the Westminster grapevine are encouraging figures about the growth of Labour Party membership since the 2010 General Election. It might suit some to buff-up the leadership of Ed Miliband with a shiny five-figure number. But viewed from the grassroots, that figure (65,000 according to an internal document 'leaked' to The Times and reproduced here http://bit.ly/wM8RJw), should be treated with caution. My best guess is that it is a gross figure (sic) and does not take account of resignations or lapses.

What is lamentable is that Labour Party senior officials know what total membership is nationally, by parliamentary constituency and administrative regional or branch in real time. That information is then used for internal political purposes, but rarely, if ever, as a legitimate performance indicator.

Past experience has been that the Labour Party will not publish that data. The best we can hope for is a national figure for 31 December 2011 in late July as part of the Statement of Accounts required by the Electoral Commission. That will be followed by CLP membership data for the same date as part of the Annual Conference Decision Book after the event in October/November ie 10 to 11 months later.

My own consituency had no new members in the last month. Nearly 10% are in arrears, therefore in the absence of fresh recruits or rejoiners, net membership already falling locally will continue to do so. This is not a surprise to me in view of the so-called Refounding Labour fiasco. Worse, the Party's so-called policy making process, Partnership into Power, has been shut to ordinary members for over 15 years. But the powers that be blunder on blindly, unwilling to look at the evidence staring them in the face that the Party on the ground is still too small and inadequately organised to ensure victory at the next Westminster elections.

Consolations, if that is what they are, come from fellow members who understand without prompting, for example, that annual accounts need to be prepared for forthcoming annual general meetings. My own branch treasurer delivered his draft for audit on the first working day after the end of the financial year. I think I should propose him for a Merit Award. Another branch chair, who is emigrating at the end of the month, has been ringing round members encouraging attendence at his 'retirement' AGM and as a result has two candidates to take his place requiring an election. Imagine! 

Now that I have got papers away to branch secretaries for our CLP AGM on 28 February (yes, two months away) and my own branch members for our AGM next week, it is time to check on those branches in need of rebuilding. In one instance it will be the third year running. But that's what goes with the job of CLP officer if you believe in rebuilding from the electoral ward up. In 2010 we failed to run candidates in every ward for every seat, we don't want that to happen again in 2014. 

To succeed we not only need more members willing to campaign, raise funds, contribute their skills and experience, we need wider recognition and support from the leadership for locally-based organisational capacity, collaboration and above all mutual respect and civility. 

Happy New Year.

Labour Party latest membership trends - a sample: peaked and falling. Yours?

As my avid readers know, I don't shirk from asking awkward questions. With 4 days to go to Labour's Annual Conference I had a look at my own constituency labour party (CLP)'s latest membership data. There are some worrying features to report - I'll call the current data end Q3, and compare it with end-2010 which is used for various purposes both locally and nationally.

The end year date 31 December is significant as it is the cut off date for national membership figures reported to the Electoral Commission. These are published usually seven months later in July, sometimes before even the National Executive Committee itself sees the data along with the Annual Accounts.

But enough of this about the Labour Party's obsessions with keeping membership data under wraps. What's up now? Over the last nine months, my CLP has had a net drop of 2% or 10 members. In itself not particularly worrying as there is always churn with members moving in and out. But members who have not renewed their subscriptions and are therefore in arrears has shot up from around 2% if I remember correctly nine months ago to 11% or 60 currently.

Of those 37 joined since May 2010. If you remember that was when Labour lost the General Election and there was a spontaneous renewal of interest in joining the Labour Party. Spontaneous? People decided to do the right thing and sign up, before the Party decided to encourage the trend by lifting the minimum six-month membership period for entitlement to vote in the Labour leadership election.

It is, of course, inappropriate to extrapolate from a sample of one. But I will. If what appears to be happening to my CLP's membership were transposed on to national data, then currently the Party would have just over 190,000 members compared with 193,961 reported to the EC as at 31 December 2010. But there may be over 20,000 in arrears, of whom as many as 11,000 could have joined as recently as May last year. So that 12-year decline in membership from 1997 (407,000) through to end 2009 (156,205) might be starting again.

Under the Party rules failure to pay for six months after the due date results in lapsed membership ie you are no longer a member. so a joiner in May 2010 failing to renew after 12-month will be lapsed in November 2011. That process could continue through the first half of 2012.

In the absence of regular and detailed membership data analysis to the NEC, other CLP officers might want to have a quick look at their latest data and see what it shows.

You will, of course, want to know what I'm going to do about it. Well, hit the telephone for a start. But it would be heartening to know that our dear Leader, Ed Miliband and/or his advisers would take any notice of the feedback provided. Some professional rigor could be added with representative sampling.

This leads me on to scepticism about the fiddling around with membership rates proposed in the mislabeled Refounding Labour package destined for Conference in four days time. In recent years there have been a number of membership promotions - two focussed on Leadership elections one in 2007- Join Us, Join In coined by former general secretary, Peter Watt after former Leader Tony Blair resigned, and then one last year. In addition, reduced rates of £1 and 1p have been offered.  It would be interesting to know if any detailed analysis of these initiatives was considered prior to the new membership rates being agreed by the NEC. Were the administrative costs of this now complex membership rate array reported to the NEC?

As I blogged here the Tories appear to have a much simpler system from a prospective joiners point-of-view, which I drew attention to for illustrative purposes only here.

One of the obstacles to Labour Party membership, I hear often, is that £41/year is too much. I would have liked to see how many CLP submissions to Refounding Labour made that point. In the context of seeking mass membership what would a more attractive rate be?

While the Labour Party remains in the thrall of its creditors we will probably never know. Which leaves the question: where's the strategy to encourage mass membership and increase returns from membership and small donations, while reducing dependency on rich donors and the affiliated trades unions. And we must forget, that old bogey of state-funding, which continues to cloud thinking in the upper echelons. I think the public would welcome a statement from the Labour Party committing not to seek increased state-funding when the Committee on Standards in Public Life is expected to report on the funding of political parties after the party conferences.

Political Party recruitment offer - 'Help shape our policies'

Hurrah! An offer from a political party I couldn't possibly refuse. After eight years of campaigning including overseeing two years of research to establish an evidence-based case for political party membership, someone has seen the light. We discovered there was a very close link in the UK between political party membership and having a say in policy-making. Of course, there are other rights, as the offer enumerates:

OTHER BENEFITS OF BEING A MEMBER

As a Member, you'll also enjoy the following benefits:

• Being able to attend Party Conferences 
• Helping to select the Party's candidates for Local, General and European elections
• Voting rights in elections for the Party Leader  
• Exclusive videos from the Party Leader

Becoming a Member costs just £25 - or £5 if you're under 23. And all your money goes to our campaign to build a better Britain.

So join today and help shape the future of your Party and your country.

An affordable membership rate, no impossible to administer membership gimmicks (1penny for a year), no messing around with sliding scales, no cut price membership rates for supporters with limited voting rights, a straightforward offer with a membership application form, what could be simpler?

Just a shame it's from the Tories.  

Prezza 'near bankrupcy' claim risks Labour Party financial recovery

Former Deputy Leader John (Lord) Prescott's imprudent proclamation about the Labour Party's 'near bankruptcy' grabbed the headlines last week, presumably in the hope of boosting his vote in the election campaign to be the next Party Treasurer. For Labour Party members awaiting a sheaf of ballot papers in the post next week, it ought to give pause for thought.

When have the Labour Party's finances ever been anything other than precarious? So what's the news in Prescott's claim? The only worthy story line to my mind is: 'Labour Party Treasurer's job made near impossible'. The irony which appears to being lost on the 4th estate is that the closest the Labour Party has been to bankruptcy in the recent past was when Prescott himself was Deputy Leader, and a senior member of the National Executive Committee. It really was a bit rich of him to have a poke at outgoing Treasurer, Jack Dromey's ignorance, when Prescott himself appears to have been no better informed. Or was he? I think the General Secretary at the time Peter Watt should tell us. Though that's unlikely as he is now backing Prezza4Treasurer.

Prescott acknowledges that the current National Executive Committee has taken the Labour Party back from the brink, but lashes out in his Guardian article on 19 August, 2010 at the electoral consequences claiming:

".....under the NEC's deficit reduction plan in 2008, we will clear our debts by 2016, but at the expense of campaigning for next year's Scottish, Welsh and local elections and the 2015 general election."

What's worrying about his approach is that Prescott apparently still thinks elections are won by throwing money at them. That's what Conservative Party financier, Lord Ashcroft thought. Now, at least some of us know the limits of that strategy.. Mercifully, the British electorate also appears reluctant to be bought. Prescott makes a gesture towards increased membership. But that alone is unlikely to put the Labour Party's finances on a sound-footing in the foreseeable future. More likely it will take at least a generation to build a new financial settlement inside the Labour Party's federal and regional structures to guarantee solvency from one electoral cycle to another. 

To succeed, the new Leader, Treasurer and National Executive Committee need to come clean with members asap. As far as the Party's finances are concerned we are all in this together, rich and poor. Each of us, individually and severally (as the lawyers say) is liable for the Labour Party's debts. For those Labour Party members of modest means, there is nothing to worry about in practice - creditors want their money back in the event of bankrputcy. So, they only chase those with money from whom there is a chance of recovery. Of course, Prescott, is one of those NEC members, like former Leader Tony Blair, who could have been prime targets in any recovery proceedings back in 2006/07. (I should add, as a member of the NEC for the last two years, I have been careful to establish an audit trail to demonstrate that I have taken all reasonable steps to ensure that the Party's finances are being managed properly.)

Looking to the future, the new Leadership needs to put an immediate stop to the pretence that there is something unique about they way the national Labour Party can account for its finances. In organisational terms, the Labour Party is an unincorporated voluntary association.  Hence, members fce unlimited liabilities in the eyes of the law.

If local parties have to hold annual general meetings, elect officers and receive audited accounts, why doesn't the Labour Party do the same, instead of pretending a general session at its Annual Conference covers the requirement? These requirements are the means of providing accountability, building and sustaining trust.

The siren calls of more state-funding, or greater reliance on rich people/the trade unions are old politics. They definitely will not help endear Labour to the electorate again.

What better way to underwrite solvency and going concern than for the new Treasurer to come forward with a financial model embracing grassroots collective responsibility? Party funding should be linked through the electoral cycle to the need for active local membership, campaigning and fundraising for local, regional, national and European elections. It should not be the sum of battlebus itineraries and costly billboard proclamations.

A fresh approach requires a fresh candidate, even though her nomination is mired by old trade union customs and practice (a subject for another day). Sorry John, you have shown some contrition through the Go4th campaign, but I shall be voting Diana4Treasurer.

Party politics: swimming against the tide

There were reports yesterday that Dan Martin, a teacher and athlete from Peterborough plans an 18-month triathlon, including swimming the Atlantic. A doddle compared with the struggle to keep the idea of party politics alive, in the face of the findings of the British Attitudes Survey published last week.

I missed the BBC's Mark Easton's blog highlighting how nearly 50% of respondents appear indifferent about voting in a general election. He went into the detail. In short, only one in six of the electorate feels strongly about any political party, compared with nearly 2 in 5 in the run up to the 1987 GE.

At the root of this problem IMHO are political party leaders and their contempt for having to give account of themselves to their members, let alone the public. In power they pass laws demanding accountability from everyone else. Labour leader Gordon Brown was mocked in in PMQs today in the House of Commons by Conservative leader for having never been elected. While sloppy political journalists continue to opine about re-electing the Prime Minister in the same breath as the General Election, those of us trying the revive party politics face a tsunami.

Party politics is a collective activity for like minded people to take part from a neighbourhood/electoral ward level, day in day out. Putting a 'X' on a ballot paper, or 1,2,3 (if the latest Labour Government rabbit out a hat were ever to make the Statute Book) comes round at least once every five years. It marks the culmination of party politics whether at a parish council, local council, devolved nation, national or European level. Forget about what marks the difference between the political parties and they end up like soap in a supermarket. Labour should want its members and supporters to know precisely why they will be voting when the GE is called. That can only be achieved by continuous engagement, political debate and involvement in decision-making. That is why belated attempts to engage members in shaping the Labour Party 2010 Manifesto still matter. Hence the race to make it radical here, here and here.

If the Maltese Labour Party can do it, why not the British?

The ultimate riposte to Peter Watt and his ilk?

Labour's radical manifesto: who decides?

Today's media is littered with reports of yesterday's Cabinet at which it was proclaimed the next Manifesto will be the most radical in recent times.

At about the same time a message went out from Head Office to Labour's beleaguered constituency National Policy Forum and National Executive Committee representatives setting out a process for further consultation with Constituency Labour Party members via their representatives.

Being a practical person, I have been wracking my brains about how members at this late stage can have any sense of ownership over the policies that might persuade the electorate to give Labour another term in office governing the United Kingdom. Remarks like these reported in the Times this morning are not helpful:

Mr Brown said there must be no repeat of last week’s botched coup. The campaign must be not “about us and the Labour Party” but about the public’s priorities. Sources said that the words amounted to an instruction.

No, Mr Brown if you have been correctly reported, in the first instance you need to remind yourself about what resources you have available to fight this General Election. If Labour is to win, it has to win over its Party pdq. Your Joint Policy Committee opted to abandon a further meeting of the National Policy Forum. There is no Spring Conference. Volunteer members of the Labour Party are not readily inclined to being told what to think (though that doesn't stop some of the NEC, too many Party staff, not to mention some Labour elected representatives from behaving as though they are the 'thought police'.) At least Labour local government understands the importance of rallying morale and is holding an event on the last weekend of February.

Instead of barking orders, some of us think reality checks are vital. Save the Labour Party is experimenting with a short survey on Labour loyalties. It is currently running in an open version on Labourhome and Facebook, and closed versions in Bury North, Weston and the City of London Branch, plus the Labour Party's own Membersnet. A report of responses on Labourhome to date is available here.

Reading between the lines, if this survey were representative, and I would be the last to claim it is on the basis of responses to date, then you would be thinking:

If your most with-it members don't think the party can win, policies are important, want a say, but they haven't one....then a further decline in membership not to mention a crushing defeat at the GE is inevitable.

That's the challenge, and it will not be altered by hand-me-downs from Downing Street. We, the members, have to want to change the zeitgeist and get on with it as part of Team Labour.

My big idea for Power 2010: Encourage political parties

Today is the last day to submit ideas to the Power 2010 initiative. I would be very surprised if this one makes their Idea of the Day.

Power 2010 asks: Tell us your big idea: 

My response:

Encourage political parties to:

1. recruit and retain members

2. sort out policy issues in local, regional and national fora, and

3. refuse state-funding.

Power 2010 asks: Tell us why this change is important to you:

My response: The PoWEr Inquiry appeared to discount political parties as the only institutions capable of forming governments, and has been perpetuating the myth ever since that there are real alternatives.

(If you can find a positive suggestion about improving how our political parties function, please let me have the reference(s).)

Ooch!