Roll-up, roll-up for the Labour Party merry-go-round

On the eve of the July 2011 Labour Party National Executive Committee, I decided to write to each CLP representative.

I came clean. I have a document in my possession marked 'Private and Confidential' It was presented to the Organisation Committee on 5 July. It claims to be based on submissions received.

This is my cover note:

Dear NEC CLP representatives

I have a copy of the report presented to the Organisation Committee a week last Tuesday. Attached is a one page attempt to set out what might be a reasoned approach to it and the recommendations at Tuesday's NEC.

In short, it is an attempt to codify centralised command and control in perpetuity, damage links with the TUs, and disempower members.

The simplest way to stop it and get back to where the party needs to be to rebuild is to take a lead from Ed Miliband in answer to a Twitter @asked: publish submissions, to which I would add: cross check against the above report. Then you may have to pencil in a special NEC to agree proposed next steps so that you can consult all CLPs and affiliates well in advance of their pre-Conference September meetings.

Hope this helps.

Peter Kenyon

secretary, Labour Democratic Network

http://www.labourdemocraticnetwork.org

 @labdemnet

 

I have had two replies and one telephone conversation with three of the six.

One of the main reasons we rank-and-file members are repeatedly outmanoeuvred is that old bureaucratic trick of stamping everything Private and Confidential. 

Earlier I had an exchange with one CLP NEC rep of which the following extracts are illuminating:

You made the following point in your previous reply and I quote:

I don’t understand your focus on the publication of the submissions rather than the content of the proposals we are confronted with.

Please explain how either I or any other member of the Party can focus on the content if the report is marked Private and Confidential?

Will you agree to propose at tomorrow's meeting that that P&C classification is removed?

To which our CLP NEC representative replied:

No – I think that would be extremely unhelpful while there are still negotiations going on to achieve a compromise or consensus. What would be the point in publishing material when it is not in the final form that Conference will vote on? It would just mean that where any subsequent concessions were made they were portrayed as a “climb-down by/defeat for” either Ed or the unions.

So, we the members will be kept in the dark until it is too late about proposals that affect directly the way in which we organise locally, and hold our elected party, and public representatives to accounts. Remember the surprise 50% increase in membership subscriptions, a CLP/BLP asset grab by Head Office to massage the national accounts, the parachuting of candidates into winnable seats, rigged selections and appeal panels for local council candidates?

CLPs and affiliates need to know what the NEC proposes well before Conference 2011 about Refounding Labour (where Rule Changes might be be proposed in ten weeks' time) and how to debate 'A better future for Britain'.  The idea from my CLP NEC correspondent that we should wait until after 6 September to have any hope of consulting our members about the underlying issues is risible.

Remember, the report itself was written before all submissions were received or rendered into a format capable of rapid electronic content analysis. But what chance all delegates refusing to vote on any Refounding Labour proposals at Conference without sight of the recommendations and the submissions in the next couple of weeks?

So our rights will be further eroded, the general public will remain distrustful of politicians, and while Labour and its new leader Ed Miliband may enjoy a bounce in the polls, the hope of a quantum shift in the idea of being involved directly in a political party will remain as elusive as ever.