Peter Kenyon

Beware! UK Labour plans another consultation on party structures

Labour's new elected leader Ed Miliband promised a fresh approach last Autumn. Very welcome it was too. Last week his nominee to lead on party reform, Peter Hain started to talk directly to members. I was there. It was meant to be packed. Yet again the Head Office control freaks got it wrong. They don't know how to cope with sentient volunteers. This session was no exception. They arranged a conventional consultation meeting with volunteers, claim over-subscription for a room with 120 plus capacity and then find the no-shows left 27 seats empty as well as the aisles, and with ample room for more at the front, sides and back too.

Hain offered a few well-chosen words by way of introduction bound to raise the temperature among those who devote time to keeping the Labour Party alive on the ground in even the most unlikeliest part of the country, like yours truly in the City of London. Membership of political parties throughout western democracies was in decline, he claimed. I just noted, “Spouting bollocks about membership” in my notes. Party activity was being stifled by insufferable bureaucracy and procedures, he claimed. Really, how does anyone ever get elected without procedures, not to mention the law? Then he suddenly changed tack. Perhaps he saw me scowling at the back. He posed a few questions before inviting contributions: “Do we need to change policy-making? Is the electoral college right? He then announced the a consultation document will be issued towards the end of March, and concluded : “We have to change our Party.” Quite so. I decided to stay quiet until towards the end and focus on one question: Another consultation?

Within minutes, Hain must have realised that who ever had arranged the meeting and prepared the briefing was seriously out of touch with grassroots' opinion, skills and experience. Or at least I hope he did. Whether he feels free to do anything about it, is another matter. 

There were some seven important issues for me arising from the contributions:

• a strong sense that our Labour MPs are no longer representative of working (class) people and their causes that the Party claims to champion, and that they should all make their minds up about restanding and in any case face compulsory reselection

• membership rose in the period prior to the 1997 election, and is not inevitably in decline, but has to have a purpose beyond being a supporter

• the present structures have a purpose

• championing local issues to establish a reputation for doing something was vital to encouraging sympathetic community organisations to integrate into party structures

• the Labour Party has yet to show any signs of learning from others, particularly the open source community about collaborative working, problem solving and conflict resolution (why wasn't this meeting being facilitated, one participant asked)

• denying members a direct say in policy making had taken a heavy toll of member morale, and removed a powerful incentive for members to attend Annual Conference 

And my question? My intervention was more of a plea with malice aforethought. Could the consultation be open and transparent? If millions in the open source community can manage it, surely it was time for the Labour Party to learn from those experiences and demonstrate its capability to reform itself?

In summing up, Hain conceded the Party was in much better shape than it could have been after defeat at the General Election last May. He addressed my plea directly: 'I will look into the practicalities”.

There are no technical obstacles to enabling an open and transparent consultation. Hain knows that. I supplied his office with the URL to CommentonThis, a tool developed by a My Society volunteer and offered to the Labour Party by me on behalf of Save the Labour Party, not in 2011, or 2010, but in 2007. That facility enables comments to a document/ or section of it to be posted adjacent to the relevant section and be seen by anyone else wanting to comment on the same document or section. Successive comments or redrafts appear like a separate blog alongside the consultation document. The only obstacles to the use of this on-line tool, or something similar are political.

I see this as a litmus test of Ed Miliband's leadership. Flunk this one, Ed, and we will know that you have surrendered to the control freaks who still dominate the Labour Party.   

 

Grassroots calling Leader:Labour Party renewal and capacity tests/goals

A call for the Labour Party's new Leader to get a grip from former Tribune editor, NEC member and co-founder of the LabOUR Commission Mark Seddon on Left Futures earlier today prompted me to make a suggestion.

One way of bringing Alan Johnson down to earth (and virtually every other Labour MP) is to look closely at the state of his constituency labour party (CLP).

Be patient, grubbing around in the grassroots throws up all sorts of dirt or nutrients depending upon whether you love gardening or not.

As currently constituted there is a disconnect between many of the smallest units of electoral representation - a local government ward, and the current Labour Party structure. This is the result of a number of factors over the last 20 years. The establishment of a national membership system - cutting out local branch collection of subscriptions and the human interaction that accompanied it. In the financial arrangements that accompanied that development in the early 1990s a share of membership subscriptions was returned to parliamentary constituency parties. Neither of the CLPs of which I have experience automatically transfers any of that money back to its branches. The branches themselves may comprise more than one electoral ward.

One of the reasons my relations with fellow Centre-Left Grassroots Alliance colleague on the NEC (2008-10) Ann Black deteriorated was a profound disagreement about the electoral ward as the appropriate basic unit for Labour Party organisation. I strongly believe in this idea(l). She considered it completely impractical.

The subject deserves more time and research, then debate, than can be achieved through this blog post. But a submission to whatever commission is set up by our new Leader to consider such matters is in the works.

In the meantime here is a starting point for anyone interested in exploring the state of the party on the ground. The results of the 2010 Labour Leadership election are available here. That table shows ballot papers distributed and is therefore an accurate proxy for paid up membership in each CLP as at the cut-off date of 8 September 2010.

To take a particular case as suggested in my comment on Mark Seddon's post, Alan Johnson is MP for Kingston Upon Hull West and Hessle. His CLP as off the cut-off date had 159 full paid up members residing in the following electoral wards Boothferry, Derringham, Hessle, Myton, Newington, Pickering, and St Andrew’s. That compares with 246 in Hull North and 221 in Hull East.

This numbers it should be remembered are after the national party increased its membership by some 20% to just over 170,000. The electorate  of Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle at the 2010 election was some 68.900. By way of comparison my own CLP has three  times as many members per eligible voters, neighbouring Islington South 4.5 times more, Bethnal Green and Bow seven times more and so on.

The City Council is under Lib-Dem control, though for how much longer. Here we go the nub of the future party, Labour is already doing well in local council by-elections. it should make major gains in May 2011 without any significant party restructuring. The issue/challenge remains how does the Labour Party rebuild the electoral coalition with voters that delivered majorities in the House of Commons and hold their confidence? My view and that of fellow travellers in ginger goups like Save the Labour Party, now joined by the post-Obama converts, Labour Values and M4C is, that among other things, we have to have the capacity to reach out locally.

This requires more than just building a mass membership and reaching out. It involves ensuring members have a proper voice that is listened to and representative of our communities. Members rights to be sleepers (ie pay their subs and do nothing) have to be respected. We need to share information about how members are served, what proportions are willing to campaign and in what way.

This is not a substitute for targetted election campaigning. But there is a need for consideration being given to how elected respresntative in local government can stand on their record and not on the receiving end of the electorate's frustration with central government. That can only hope to be achieved by having a vibrant party on the ground willing and able to fundraise and fight for every vote in every election however lowly.

IMO that would be easier to achieve with a Leader willing to actively promote rebuilding electoral ward by electoral ward right the way across the United Kingdom.

 

 

 

Final NEC meeting, pic with Ed - he'll save the Labour Party

My two year term as an elected constituency section representative on the Labour Party National Executive Committee ended a few minutes ago.

It was the handover meeting when newly elected members were welcomed, and those departing are thanked and presented with a certificate. Fitting that it was Ed Miliband who did the honours, ironic that I failed to get re-elected when the Party elected a leader whom I believe will save the Labour Party.

Earlier at a Q&A in the Conference Hall, Ed wrapped up the session calling for mass-membership. He called for more members than in 1997. (That's 407,000). For all of us who have been campaigning through Save the Labour Party, it is a very precious moment. On your behalf, I thanked him. Now the real work starts to turn that optimism into a mass movement to win back a majority in the House of Commons.

 

 

New dawn overshadowed by old Labour Party machine

This morning's National Executive Committee will be Ed Miliband's first as Party Leader. He completed an obligatory round of receptions last night wooing delegates and visitors enjoying their acclaim. It was a tight finish.

The sun is shining through broken cloud scudding across Manchester. Will it be a new dawn or overshadowed by those controversial decisions of the NEC to alter the rules to sequester property, massage the balance sheet, launch a wreckers' charter and play brass monkeys over the PLP rule changes?

Not long to find out then whether our bright new hope for change will say boo to the goose. If none of the above, faced with elections in May, there are some basic questions about party organisation and capacity. How many candidates has Labour got lined up to fight council seats in eight months time? A leader wanting to show the country Labour is determined to take up their causes wherever will need to know: can we fight every seat? What are Ladbrokes offering on GS unable to answer? The standard response is, of course, we haven't got the money. To which my response is: think out of the box. We need to fire up Labour members and supporters to want to fight every seat in May however thin the party's presence on the ground today.

That's the challenge. It is not helped by ill-thought through morale crushing top down suspensions of locally selected candidates, or sequestration of locally owned and managed assets as decided by last week's NEC.

Unity pleas must not mask a deep rift over how the Labour Party is run

A HH:MM:SS countdown to the Labour Party Leadership announcement adorns its website. A gradual swell of pleas for unity can be anticipated ahead and after the declaration. The political fight has to be taken to the Tories. Who could disagree? Livelihoods of millions of people whether in or out of work for whatever reason are under threat from the ConDem's mismanagement of the budget deficit.

All the more reason to expose and seek to heal a long-standing rift over how the Labour Party itself is run. Rift? What rift? It's between the democratic centralisers and the democratic socialists. There was a time, it is said, when Party staff served all sections of the Party. No longer. Throughout Tony Blair's period in office as Leader, Party staff were deployed to serve the Leader; and with increasing ruthlessness. Remember the fiascos over the leadership of the Welsh Assembly, and who should run in 2000 as Labour's candidate for London Mayor?

The lingering stench of democratic centralism continues to pollute the Party as was all too evident at this week's pre-Conference National Executive Committee. A prolonged campaign of interference in the rights of Labour Party members in Tower Hamlets to select their own candidates for public office reached fever pitch with a mini-hysteria led by Acting Leader, Harriet Harman, her husband, Jack Dromey, aided and abetted by NEC chair Ann Black (seeking re-election on the self-styled Grassroots Labour slate) and the General Secretary Ray Collins. Swift action by the new leader to replace Collins and other HO staff has been called for on Left Futures. That's easier said than done. There is a deeply engrained democratic centralist culture espoused not just by Labour Party grandees and HO staff, but supporters at every level of the Party. John Harris in the Guardian on Wednesday caught a facet of this culture in his Comment piece Labour's right will roar back. He asked:

What has happened to the party's right? Most of its remaining number are clustered around MiliD, and aside from the odd pop at "Red" MiliE, keeping shtoom. But do not be fooled: they are as fired up as ever, and preparing for a return once the membership gets back to leaflets and balloons.

Note Harris's appreciation of members as sentient beings. The centre-left has no coherent vision or message for members disenfranchised in constituency parties frozen in time by the National Executive Committee awaiting the outcome of a ConDem government boundary review, which will take years. The machine's dogged resistence to parliamentary prospective candidate reselection needs to be recognised for what it is - a sitting MP's insurance scheme. I'm a Chartist. I support annual parliamentary elections as the most effective means of holding our elected representatives to account. But given recent experience the least Labour could do is reintroduce compulsory reselection. Where  there is no Labour MP, CLPs should be encouraged to come up with not just consituency, but branch development plans. These should link fundraising, local/national campaigning and political education to fight every parish, town, district, local and regional government seat. Alliances can be forged with community groups. It is a mammoth task. The new Leader should seek a rapid start on this work.

In doing so s/he will have to be mindful of what the NEC is actually proposing at Conference in Manchester. To encourage local initiative (not), it is proposing a rule change to oblige all party units to transfer any property it holds in trust or owns into the name of the Labour Party. It is sequestration in defiance of the wishes of countless benefactors dead or alive. Why? To bolster the national Labour Party's balance sheet increasing its assets at no financial cost. I doubt my ability to organise a sufficiently vocal protest to get  the proposed Rule change withdrawn. But if the new Leader wants to send a clear message to members s/he could useful insist at the NEC meeting on Sunday that sequestration is deferred pending an open and transparent consultation.

As I said at the NEC on Tuesday soundings undertaken by the outgoing Treasurer Jack Dromey were utterly cynical. They took place over the summer holiday period between the second half of July and 17 September. Worse, sound reasons for having a coherent property policy are being used to cover up the scandalous breakdown in financial governance arrangements of the Labour Party without the lessons being fully aired, understood and addressed. In the absence of proper budgets and management accounts, I have reluctantly come to the conclusion that I should not  trust HO with my membership subscription, let alone a bequest . 

In the quest for change in the Party, relations between Leader and individual member and political levy payer/affiliate awakened by the 4-1/2 month long campaign have to be built on further. Reform of policy-making and encouragement of debate taking on the Tories should not be confined to Westminster but extended to everywhere people live and work. Here there is an opportunity to rebalance the Party's federal structure. New Labour squeezed the affiliated trades unions' representation on the National Policy Forum - to around 1/6th. But it left the TUs holding a disproportionate number of NEC seats - 13/33 who continue to fulfil a praetorian guard function for the Leadership. That compares with just 6/33 for constituency reps. TU representatives also hold the whiphand on the NEC organisation committee. Those whom I have encountered in my two year term on the NEC are temperamentally unsuited to managing discipline in a voluntary organisation. Put simply they have forgotten the need for carrots. Sadly, they have abandoned any regard for natural justice as evidenced in former MP Ian Gibson's deselection last year, and latterly over Tower Hamlets. There should be equal representation of affiliates and CLP representatives on the Organisation Committee, and in the coming year it should be chaired by a CLP representative.

A really bold Leader would tackle the representation of women in the Party's structures head on. An opportunity to set a 50% minimum for elected places in the Shadow Cabinet was lost on Tuesday thanks to the sisterhood. Acting Leader Harriet Harman failed to secure the votes in the PLP ballot. The NEC failed to hold the PLP to account. When I questioned the status of the PLP inside the Party, i was told by self-professed equalities champion and General Secretary Ray Collins that standing orders were outside the scope of the Rule. Not true, every CLP and local government groups SOs have to be approved by the NEC. When I protested NEC vice-chair Norma Stephenson moved next business, which was promptly adopted by NEC chair Ann Black. There are sound reasons for the PLP to be brought explicitly within the scope of the Labour Party's Rule Book when it comes to Party policy and financial governance arrangements. A thoughtful Leader on Sunday morning would ask for a rethink and suggest that the PLP SO changes should be put to Conference with an NEC recommendation for immediate adoption of a minimum of 50% elected places for women. Then a political education programme is needed to both encourage women to stand as Labour candidates, and branches and constituency parties to choose them.

Finally, there is the question of accountability of the Leadership. The Party hierarchy has already fixed an indefinite term of office, contrary to Rule, for Deputy Leader Harriet Harman. Nomination papers for Leader and Deputy Leader should be issued each year. The democratic centralists have ignored this since 1997. If the new Leader wants to reconnect with members s/he should insist that nomination papers are sent out. it gives every member the chance to say: "You are doing a great job, I will renominate you" or "Hang on, you are not, I will nominate another member of the PLP". The democratic centrist fear chaos, and bizarrely are proposing a Rule change in Manchester. That has been  described by Left Futures as a "wreckers' charter". If that is intended to stir up effective opposition, it is to be applauded. But not at the expense of securing a commitment from our new Leader to be accountable regularly to the membership as well as the electorate.

After seven years of campaigning for membership and our critical importance getting Labour's messages across on the doorstep, I hope our new Leader will not just put the Blair/Brown years behind, but the democratic centralist practices that prolonged them beyond the electorate's patience.

Smashing the Labour Party machine: a Labour Leader's 1st= priority

As the Labour Leadership, Treasurer and NEC election ballot papers drop, it's time to look inwards and ask is the Labour Party's internal organisation fit for purpose?

Since the contest started to replace Gordon Brown millions of words have been uttered, written and recorded about the direction of travel, New Labour versus old Labour, drawing lines under the past and moving on. Today we have been treated to vivid reminders in the Blair memoirs about why Leadership elections between the real contenders are healthy for our party democracy as well as the electorate. But little has been said or discussed about the Labour Party's internal organisation(s) which the new Leader will inherit.

Worse, we have had an ongoing conspiracy of silence about the absence of a Deputy Leadership election. Nor should we forget that if the Shadow Cabinet had had its way, the Leadership contest would have been done and dusted before the Parliamentary summer recess in a machine effort to shoe-horn in David Miliband. Paradoxically, it was the Party's National Executive Committee (NEC) that put a stop to a rushed Leadership contest; but then ignored the Rule Book regarding nominations for the Deputy . Admittedly, the General Secretary reported legal advice. However, that was shown subsequently to be non-existent. But the machine ground on oblivious. Nor did the NEC's appetite for a show of openness and transparency over the Leadership contest stop it from extending a dubious interpretation of the Rules to effectively exclude so-called leading left-winger John McDonnell from the contest.

Whoever is announced as the new Leader on Saturday 25 September should be asking her/himself whether the Party machine would function better if there were a broad and well understood consensus about the Rules, rather than infinite scope for scheming and manipulation. Statements from the candidates to date are not encouraging. Lots of warm words about openness and transparency, listening to members and the like, but a lack of necessary attention to detail to be persuasive.

Beyond the Rules, and the need to be guided by them if not bound, are a multitude of issues about organisational structures, personnel and finance. As reported previously, when elected to the NEC I requested among other things a copy of the budget and the latest management accounts. I was refused. Moreover, the NEC's Terms of Reference (ToR) were changed at my first full NEC meeting in November 2008. Of course, they were not changed by diktat. There was a veneer of democracy, namely a 'vote'. I  recorded my dissent and stated publicly that I remained to be convinced the ToR were fit for purpose. Contributors to this blog have argued that I was seeking to engage in micro-management. Far from it, management accounts in large organisations are summaries of a budgetary and accounting system that, if well presented, highlight trends. A new leader could change the internal culture of the Labour Party at a stroke by demanding full disclosure on a confidential basis for all NEC members both of the budget, and the management accounts.

This should be done in the context of rebuilding the Party's finances to fight future elections, not on the basis of the requirements of the Electoral Commission, important though they are. The Labour Party of the future needs to establish a complete picture of money flows both local, regional and nationally. Currently head office takes no meaningful interest in the finances of its party units that generate less than £25K income a year, even though that amount is more than enough to fund local activity throughout the electoral cycle between General Elections.

It should not have gone unnoticed that Labour fought the last election without increasing its borrowing. This does not mean to say that one of the cogs in the machine, namely the General Secretary didn't try and turn in that direction. I don't blame him for trying. But the NEC said: No. Labour's campaign had to financed out of cash in hand and donation. Head Office has a very successful fundraising department targeting wealthy Labour members and supporters, as well as the trade unions. The latest donation figures from the Electoral Commission show over £10 million was given to the Party to help finance the election in Q2 2010. That was despite fighting the Tories and the Lib-Dems with 'loser' Brown as Leader. The election results showed where Labour had activists on the ground in sufficient numbers, it could hold seats, as it did, for example, in Islington South, Oxford East, Tooting and Westminster North against the national trend.

UPDATE SEE COMMENTS: I wrote: In the exceptional case of Oxford East, the seat was retained with very little printed literature at all. Antonia comments: It's nonsense. See my comment for my apology for possibly misunderstanding the level of printed literature distributed and its impact on the outcome.

I have already challenged John Prescott's pitch for the post of Party Treasurer on the grounds that he doesn't seem to have got the message - it's members that count, not money of itself. Of the leadership contenders, David Miliband is the most suspect of a 'filthy lucre fixation', with his boast that he has demonstrated his money-raising capacity. Sure, but was it ethical? The Labour Party still lacks an ethical donations policy. The Party machine from sitting MPs, the vast majority of the National Executive Committee, though Head Office and Regional staff appear frightened of members playing a greater role. Why? Because, they would have to be more accountable to them.

A new Leader could set the tone by quietly insisting that the whole NEC is on the platform for the Annual Report and Accounts, and insisting that delegates are entitled to ask questions of any NEC member. That could be done in Manchester in four weeks' time. With regard to staff, the contenders should take a  particular interest in the Erith and Thamesmead ballot box tampering affair in 2009, as yet unresolved. Members will recall there was a high profile selection process featuring the young Georgia Gould, daughter of former PM Tony Blair's favourite pollster. She was seeking the nomination as Prospective Parliamentary Candidate. In controversial circumstances,  the Labour Party high command decided to take control of the process and lodged the ballot box in Head Office. After the alleged 'break-in', the selection ballot had to be re-run via solicitors. An internal inquiry was instituted by the NEC, since then - silence. Unconfirmed reports allege that senior staff representatives have blocked DNA testing that might help the General Secretary with his inquiries. 

That unsavoury episode underlines the extent of distrust between active members and party staff that has to be addressed if the Party is going to regroup successful to harness all the talents of its members and supporters.

I hope some of this issues will be touched on in the remaining hustings especially by my first and second preferences, not to mention the need for proper policy debates at Conference. Hence my headline '1st= priority'.

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.

Former Labour GS joins fray re Deputy Leadership no-contest

Let nobody say Twitter doesn't fulfil a function. At 0001 this morning Peter Watt, former Labour Party General Secretary joined my tweeter-flush with Tom Harris MP on the subject of whether or not nomination papers for Deputy Leader should have been issued shortly after the 2010 General Election campaign. His contributions can be followed @peterwatt123 on Twitter

Did the PLP conspire not to challenge Labour's Deputy Leader?

An amusing exchange is taking place on Twitter concerning my last posting on this site between yours truly @PeterKenyon and Tom Harris MP @TomHarrisMP. In his lasting tweet, Tom reports:

As we know, leadership nomination papers aren't normally sent out unless requested by MPs. I'm not aware of any such requests.

To which I replied:

 I respectfully suggest you read the Rule Book.

I'm gagging for his response.

Will Labour's leadership contestants come clean about the Deputy?

Within a couple of weeks, the ballot papers for the Labour Party's new Leader, Treasurer, and constituency section representatives on its National Executive Committee will have been delivered to individual members. But there will not be one for the Deputy Leadership. By 'royal' decree - there is no vacancy.

I blogged about the Deputy Leadership issue shortly after Labour lost the General Election here, here and here and failed to provoke much debate. The Labour Party machine swung into brass monkey mode and Harriet Harman was deemed to be entitled to remain in position as Deputy Leader.

I proposed at the May NEC meeting that the nomination papers should be issued as required by Rule. My proposal was seconded by Christine Shawcroft. She and I were the only NEC members to vote in favour of a simple democratic mechanism giving Labour Party members the means of exercising their right to make up their own minds up as to whether she should remain in office or not.

So what are the contenders saying about this issue? Just like the Labour Party machine - apparently, it's brass monkey time for Leadership wannabees too. Yesterday Ed Balls published a 10-point plan here. Andy Burnham tweeted to announce a 20+ page manifesto some time today. Ed Miliband's Decca Aitkenhead interview appeared in the Guardian today here. Lots of fine words, which deserve closer scrutiny. But no mention of the democratic socialist party's little secret fix - the Deputy Leadership.   

I am not holding my breath. These people aspire to lead a political party whose purpose is to govern and make laws. Yet so far none of them is prepared to speak out in defence of the 'laws' of their own party. Not even when it comes to a position that carries the authority of the position of Deputy Leader. If anyone wants to sustain interest in the Leadership contest, then let's be having the contenders on the record about this last gasp of the royal pretender in the Labour Party - the Rt Hon Harriet Harman QC MP.