David Pitt-Watson's decision not to take up the post of General Secretary of the Labour Party was announced last Friday in the wake of last week's 'disappointing' election results,. Speculation is now focussing on a quick fix to appoint. As yet, I have not spoken to any of my fellow CLGA slate colleagues who are currently sitting on the NEC. But those members whom I have spoken to are concerned about the NEC's commitment to equal opportunities. Will this be abandoned in the circumstances?
That begs the question of what are they (the circumstances, that is)? The latest vacancy arose from the abrupt departure of Peter Watt (pictured) last year, following revelations of hidden donations to Labour Party funds in apparent breach of electoral law, and Party Rules. Peter was the fifth General Secretary in ten years.
The post is theoretically an elected position of Annual Conference. IMHO we should have an OMOV ballot. But at the NEC officers meeting yesterday, it was decided to reopen applications without the assistance of headhunters (Rockpools invoice for the previous abortive recruitment is believed to be a modest £50K.) According to my sources, NEC chair Dianne Hayter unilaterally cancelled the NEC scheduled for 22 May, in favour of a meeting in early June after which applications will have been sifted by Party officers. (Don't they have any other business to discuss? So much for good governance.)
Whether that decision stands is a moot point. But there seems little doubt that No.10 has done another wobbly and is now backing former T&G official Ray Collins, who failed to secure the votes on the NEC when a non-equal opps selection process led to the appointment of Peter Watt back in 2006. Charlie Whelan, political director of Unite, and Brown's former spin doctor, is being cited by sources who prefer to remain anonymous as the source of the 'Ray's the next GS' story. How that idea is squared with the five hours committed by the Leader of the Party to the abortive interview panel that elected David Pitt-Watson is a bit of a mystery at present. (Insiders say Brown sat on the panel processing official papers until the time came for the vote - not the best advertisement for equal opportunities recruitment processes, either.) As for Mike Griffiths, who failed by a narrow margin to secure the post against Pitt-Watson, the speculation is that he will only apply again if he can win.
As avid readers of this blog will remember, I was a candidate in the first round of this latest recruitment. In the absence of an invite to interview from No. 10, the headhunters, I blogged about the competences needed. I came down in favour of a financial strategist/negotiator inclined to rebuild a mass membership party, rather than a trade union fixer, who delivered for Brown and the unions; but not the CLPs, and the wider membership.
One to watch....