Peter Kenyon

Labour Party: leadership rules fit for purpose?

In answer to the above question, I cite the following tit-bit. The 33rd Labour MP to nominate Diane Abbott, thereby ensuring her place on the Leadership ballot paper, was former Justice Secretary Jack Straw MP.

Enough said? Now what?

Is the Labour Party a going concern post-2010 General Election?

This is the question anyone is entitled to ask. It is one that every Labour Party leadership wannabe should be addressing. As an elected member of the Labour Party National Executive Committee, I was issued with a gagging order last year not to do so. Arguably, it sums up in a proverbial 'nut shell' what is wrong with the Labour Party's current governance arrangements.

A key feature of New Labour was to belittle due process. Today, how many Labour Party meetings feature a regular Treasurer's report with accounts? Certainly, not Labour's so-called ruling National Executive Committee. An instant audit of constituency and branch labour party meetings would be very revealing. My own branch and CLP treasurers provide a monthly update usually in writing if there are any significant changes. I think most members appreciate their willingness to be open and accountable. Annual accounts are audited and the auditor(s) make themselves available at the AGM. When there is slippage there is catchup.

Somewhere in the dim and distant past I took a different path from the sofa politicians of New Labour. Maybe it was helping in the local Co-op shop as a young lad in Lancashire. Perhaps it was reporting quoted company results for Reuters. Then there was a fraud by a local scout troop leader that resulted in my son and his fellow Scouts being cheated of an overseas camping trip, (The offender was eventually given a custodial sentence for breach of trust.) Whatever, I came to expect that in any voluntary association, or incorporated body I was involved in that the highest standards of financial reporting would be aspired to.

So what about those five Labour leadership wannabes? Four of them have been members of the Cabinet - governing the country, imposing targets, demanding accountability of others. Do any of them have a sense of irony?

Now to the substance of whether the Labour Party is a going concern. I have been informed that the 2009 accounts have been signed off. It is regrettable that there was no NEC meeting beforehand with the Auditor(s) both elected and appointed present to answer questions. So the answer to the question is I don't know. I could speculate. But I won't. I just want to see the figures with my own eyes and have an opportunity to question the auditor(s) myself. I belief that some of the 16,464 members who voted for me to represent them on the NEC expect no less.

Which Labour Leadership wannabe will speak out against these 'New Labour' practices, and defend my rights?  Which  will support the call for a proper Annual General Meeting at Conference? We need to know if we are to learn from the past and create a sound foundation for the future.

Curiouser and curiouser: Left Futures backward thinking

A mystery organisation, Grassroots Labour, has sprung up on the self-styled Left Futures website masquerading as the NEC (National Executive Committee) Slate. This should NOT be confused with the Centre-Left Grassroots Alliance (CLGA) slate that for the last 14 years has offered up candidates for the NEC. I declare an interest, as the preferred candidate of Save the Labour Party (STLP) for re-election to the NEC following an all-member ballot on the CLGA slate.

The GL was cobbled together overnight by the Campaign for Labour Party Democracy (CLPD). It was created following STLP chair Peter Kenyon's (my) refusal to break an agreement at the last CLGA meeting. That was that the CLGA, in the absence of consensus on six names for the constituency section, agreed that eight names should be circulated to CLPs and a final slate of six would be agreed if possible after the 30 July nomination closing date, and before the issue of ballot papers to members, now not expected until early September.

The CLPD 'offer' was that I should go on the GL slate along with fellow males Ken Livingstone and Pete Willsman, together with Ann Black, Christine Shawcroft and Sofi Taylor. The CLPD envoy proposed dropping Sam Tarry. That seemed to me to be a breach of faith with Compass and Compass Youth in particular who were keen to get involved in Labour Party governance. Moreover, Sam had been elected national chair of Young Labour the year before and would have reduced the average age of the CLGA slate by nearly half a generation at a stroke. Instead, I suggested the CLPD should choose between Ken and Pete, knowing that idea, to put it politely, would be refused out of hand.

Anyone exploring the inability of the centre-left to respond to New Labour need look no further than the CLGA. I have been a member of the NEC for nearly two years. There has never been a caucus or systematic attempt to seek alliances with other sections of the Party represented on the Labour Party's so-called ruling National Executive Committee. There is no agreed agenda. There is a CLGA statement about policy. But the NEC to date is still locked in post-Blairite stasis and doesn't do policy.

Anyone keen to know more is welcome to ask and I will do my best to answer. In the meantime, Save the Labour Party's committee met this afternoon and had a mercifully brief report back and discussion on the slate issue before deciding to stand by the CLGA agreement and circulate all eight names in its next members' and CLP/BLP newsletters. It will review the nominations for each candidate if available on 31 July. In the meantime, STLP agreed that there was work to be done preparing for the next NEC on 20 July, Rule changes for Conference 2010 and demands of the Leadership contenders.

As for Left Futures, it boasts: “The best that’s Left in Labour. Good writing. Sharp criticism. Open debate. Campaigning. Red or green, aligned or not, Left Futures seeks to refresh and activate your politics."

Let's hope its unexplained promotion of CLPD-retro was a momentary lapse from its mission. BTW - hot tip for whomever designed the gizmo (copied above) do you want everyone to miss the real excitement by arriving in Manchester on Sunday 26^th? The Labour Party Conference 2010 starts on Saturday 25^th September, when agenda issues with the Conference Arrangements Committee have to be addressed, and for added interest this year – the results of the Leadership election will be announced the same day.

Scrambling for Labour Leadership supporting nominations - they're a myth

As a CLP secretary I have just received an eMail from the David Miliband campaign, inviting me to print off copies of his Leadership candidate statement and seeking a 'supporting' nomination.

Sorry, David, in the interests of the environment, I shall not be printing off copies as you request. But if you have paper copies, please send them to me by post and I will make them available to members in our next meeting cycle in July.

BTW - an attempt was made to move a supporting amendment at a joint meeting of four branches in Westminster North, at which I was the guest speaker. Not for Mili D, I should add. The prevailing sentiment was that it was too early in the debate to decide. However, following an assurance from the chair that a vote would not be binding, the resolution was eventually moved and carried by a quarter of members at the meeting eligible to vote. The vast majority just abstained.

There are five candidates on the Leadership ballot paper. All members have a vote in a secret ballot, irrespective of how many 'supporting' nominations are secured by the candidates.

So what's the point?

I'd like to think this was an opportunity for the Leadership candidates to demonstrate a basic understanding of 'How the Labour Party works' . (That was the theme of my talk last night.)

So I have a question for all the candidates. Have you read the Rule Book? If so, please let us all know the reference to a provision for supporting nominations in a Leadership election. As all avid readers of this blog know, they are a myth. NB it's a myth being propogated by the majority of the National Executive Committee of which you will become a member if elected Leader. So why not tell us what you think about that NOW.

Doyen of Labour Party Rule Book poses teaser

Will any of the Labour Party Leadership contenders pick up Vladimir Derer's challenge set out in Tribune last week?

He wrote:

There would be no confusion about how to elect Labour’s next leader had the National Executive Committee complied with the party rulebook instead of following New Labour’s practice of ignoring it.

Convention wisdom would suggest that none of those achieving the necessary 33 nominations under the procedures agreed by a majority of the NEC will contest the rules governing the contest. On the contrary as chair of Save the Labour Party I am sure our members will see this as one of the real tests for the next Leader; namely an unimpeachable commitment to good governance and party democracy.

Interim Labour Party Leader (don't you dare challenge me as Deputy) Harriet Harman repeatedly reminds us this election could involve four million people. But of that large number, only some 150,000 feel sufficiently close to the Party to want to be full members.

So far there has been little discussion about how the Labour Party can survive and proposer as a registered political party. Rooting out the Blairite model of party organisation is not just 'a nice to have'. They hollowed out the party to purge dissenting, disloyal voices. That's evident from the membership numbers. From some 407,000 in 1997, there has been a net loss of 250,000. Those figures probably disguise a bigger malaise. Any effective membership recruitment and retention stategy requires detailed knowledge of the churn rate - branch by branch, constituency by constituency. What works and what doesn't in terms of local organisation and activity matters too. 

Formulating Manifesto policies requires budgetary discipline. How is a policy going to be paid for? The same rigour is required during this leadership debate to party organisational renewal. There are tricky issues arising from New Labour's dependence on a small number of rich people to fund its activities. That undoubtedly contributed to policy drift away from the interests of our core vote. Now we are in opposition we are going to have to be super-vigilent to the ConDem shared agenda to rip the heart out of the Labour Party threatening legislation to sever links with the affiliated trades unions.

This requires the early adoption of a new financial model in which full membership subscriptions and small donations account for the largest share of income. That is relatively easy, compared with challenging the rules encapsulating how the leadership contest is conducted - not forgetting the failure of the NEC/Interim Leader to ensure nomination papers are issued for the Deputy Leadership. This is considered by most people whom I talk to to be too trivial. Alternatively, it could be seen as symptomatic of that New Labour attitude that 'rules are for little people'. If Labour wants to move on from Blair/Brown/Mandelson, then it is a vivid illustration of what has to change if re-electability is to be achieved.

So who will take the lead: Andy, David, Diane, Ed, or Ed?

In the heat of the moment, there was a Labour leadership contest fix

What better place to learn of Diane Abbott's nomination as a candidate for the Labour Party leadership than a drift mine in Co. Durham? Part of the industrial archaeology site at Beamish - it is a must for anyone interested in a little political education about the class system, income and wealth inequalities. That's all thanks to the retrained miners that conduct the tours. The Labour Party leadership contenders could do well to don a hard hard, crouch down and see the conditions on which Britain's heritage was built at the coalface.

For those of us preoccupied by the modern coalface, we won't be forgetting that in the 2010 Labour leadership contest, there had to be a old-style political fix to ensure that one woman got on to the ballot paper.

Sunny Hundal here reports that at the official closing time for nominations 1230 (not 1200 noon as I reported incorrectly yesterday) Diane Abbott did NOT have the necessary 33 nominations. Labour HQ stopped the clock. More arm-twisting. Hey presto, she emerged successfully nominated. (I suspected that was the case since I was rung by the BBC Radio 4 World at One programme shortly after 1230 and was told that they did not know at that moment if Diane had made the cut.)

Sunny speculated that only leftwingers were angry about John McDonnell withdrawing. Wrong, I am too. His retreat took the pressure off the NEC's Procedure Committee which was due to meet after the deadline. Imagine the six women and one man confronted with only four 40-something white male ex-Cabinet ministers nominated for the Leadership ballot. (The NEC Procedures Committee comprises: Mr and Mrs Dromey, Ann Black, Cath Speight, Norma Stephenson, Mary Turner and Margaret Wheeler.) Do we seriously believe that the sisterhood would have delivered for the brothers? I think not.

That is, of course, all idle speculation, the official communique decreed:

“Over the next few months over 4 million people will have the chance to help shape Britain’s progressive future by choosing the next leader of the Labour Party.

“This will be the biggest and most widespread election of any political party or any organisation in this country.  

“The contest will be open engaging and energising. It will be a chance to invite supporters to join the party to have a vote.  

“This debate will involve Labour Party members, supporters in our affiliated trade unions and the wider public.  This leadership contest is Labour’s opportunity to take forward the rebuilding for our party for the future challenges ahead.

“Over the coming months the candidates will meet thousands of people in meetings across the country and take the debate over Britain’s progressiv e future to as wide an audience as possible.”

All true, but incomplete. It was a fix, and the NEC should review the current Leadership rules to enable Leadership nominations in future to reflect the widest possible range of opinion, as well as gender and diversity. So the Party has made a step in the right direction. But the ends do not justify the means.

Labour's NEC Procedures Committee faces a simple choice

I've just finished walking Hadrian's Wall and spending a few days with family in the North East to find the Labour Party is still uphill and down dale over its Leadership contest. The next move is simple, the NEC Procedures Committee delays the deadline for nominatons by the PLP until 26 July. That would enable the appeal by NEC chair Ann Black to sink in among Labour MPs. In the meantime all the declared candidates can set out their positions whether on policy, post-mortem or party organisation.

If sufficient House of Commons members of the PLP do not understand their job is to facilitate choice for all members first, then the NEC can always review the nomination threshold on 20 July, when it next meets. The NEC Procedures Committee when it meets later today, I have been told, cannot change the 12.5% threshold, as the full NEC voted against the proposed reduction to 10% moved by Christine Shawcroft and seconded by myself at its last meeting on 18 May. I agree with that ruling.

So it's down to the NEC Procedures Committee to enable choice, if Labour MPs don't get the message by 12 noon.