Peter Kenyon

Labour's NEC/NPF candidates should have an all-member eMail slot

Today, the Labour Party National Executive Committee (NEC) has been meeting. In the wake of complaints about certain candidates for internal elected office having access to all-members contact details, by fair means or foul, I wondered whether consideration was given to a comradely gesture.

Instead of a witch-hunt, did our NEC representatives consider following a precedent established during the 2010 leadership election campaign and grant all candidates an opportunity to make a personalised communication to all members? NB. This does not require releasing membership details to all candidates, but use of the national membership datebase, and a modicum of staff time forwarding to members one communication per candidate (willing to gamble the risk of alienation in the hope of securing an extra vote). 

If not, it must be within the powers of the General Secretary, Iain McNicol, to ensure a more level playing field for the NEC and National Policy Forum 2012 elections now underway?

Even though ballot papers have gone out to most members, a gentle reminder in the former of personalised communications between now and the close of polls at 5pm on Wednesday 13 June 2012 might even increase turnout.

 

 

Decision time? My Labour Party NEC ballot papers are in the Pending tray

Wise man, that Harold Wilson. A week is a long time in politics. I see from the NEC / NPF ballot paper I have got just over two weeks before I have to make up my mind.

There is always a risk of forgetting. But thanks to modern communications devices I have set an alarm in my calendar to remind me of the deadline a few days beforehand. In the meantime what could possbly change? In 2008, I was a successful member of the Centre Left Grassroots Alliance (CLGA) slate. But in 2010 there was a comradely disagreement about the composition of that slate. I ran as an independent, did no campaigning and duly failed to get elected. Selfishly, I only voted for myself. But that was the only way as an individual to optimise my vote. Silly really, and I digress.

The CLGA slate is a fix, just like the Progress/Labour First state. LabourList's editor, Mark Ferguson has done the Labour Party a great service today by asking: Is the Labour Party addicted to “fixing”? http://bit.ly/K6PDWq

It is a highly pertinent question. A lack of trust in each other has poisoned our democratic socialist politics, and will continue to do so until a better understanding of the importance of openness and accountability, checks and balances and the critical role of open, free elections is respected.

It is reasonable to suppose that I will not be voting for any members of the Progress/Labour First slate who mouth worthy sentiments about members and members' rights, but most of whom have form to the contrary.

Nor will I be voting the CLGA slate. Pete Willsman is at the heart of the CLGA fixing, too fond of the sound of his own voice and prone to shout at anyone who has the temerity to disagree with him. Ken Livingstone is another machine politician. Has anyone seen a report of an NEC meeting from Ken since he was elected in 2010? Ken was, of course, a victim of fixing when Labour selected its candidate for the 2000 election. Initially he was opposed to the idea of an elected Mayor for London, then having won twice, he couldn't stop himself. Ann Black by her own omission has made some shocking mistakes. But no one could accuse her of not wanting the best for members and making heroic efforts since she was first elected to the NEC to make sure we all received her regular reports. Similarly, with Christine Shawcroft - she and I were the only CLP representatives on the NEC to oppose the Labour Party machine's shameless fixing of the nomination for elected Mayor in Tower Hamlets (together with BAME rep Keith Vaz). Then there are the two new names: Darren Williams - is no stranger to anyone in the Labour Party who has followed the affairs of Welsh Labour Grassroots and their steady progress in promoting Labour values, winning seats on the Welsh executive and representing Wales on the NPF. Kate Osamor is unknown to me so I shall be reading her candidate statement, with interest - along with the independents.

Lastly, there is the sitting independent NEC Johanna Baxter. No one could fault her commitment. But, and this 'but' is targetted at all sitting members - to what purpose? 

This takes me back to an issue that has been troubling me for nearly 10 years as a member of the Labour Party. Are we really wanted? Are we part of its future? Or are we just a nuisance to be managed by the fixers?

Evidence of a deeper appreciation/understanding and commitment to the role of members will be my main focus before taking the ballot paper out of my pending tray.

 

Angela Eagle sets out her stall

Congratulations to Angela Eagle on having her name put forward by Labour Leader Ed Miliband to replace Peter Hain as chair of the National Policy Forum.

I worked with her on the LabOUR Commission in 2006/07. This is her Foreword to the Commission's Interim Report - Renewal a two-way process for the 21st century, published in 2007:

Foreword – Angela Eagle MP

Labour has to renew its financial, organisational and political vigour to secure a fourth term in Government . The loss of four million votes and half of our membership since 1997 sounds the warning bells clearly enough. Political culture is changing and we must respond. The era of Labour as an over centralised ‘command party’ - see Figure 1 opposite - which replaced the chaos of the 1980s with a winning formula, has now become counter-productive. It has bred cynicism and stifled activism. The urgent question now is: What should replace it? The forthcoming Leader/Deputy Leader elections will help to define this new era for our Party. The LabOUR Commission’s Interim recommendations presented here are based onthe findings of the first representative study of Labour Party members’ views since Labour’s landslide victory in 1997. Both lapsed and current members were contacted. A crucial lesson from our research is that Labour in Government has not trusted Party members enough. Our research findings show that the Labour Party has changed. Labour Party members are pragmatic and they want Labour to be in Government. They understand how important it is to win. In return, they expect to be trusted to help shape policies to win support from the communities Labour seeks to serve.This Interim Report suggests a model of Party organisation which will serve Labour well in the future. As a Party seeking to empower all sections of our society, we know we cannot rely on the kind of mercenary multi-millionaire donors now currently filling Tory party coffers. Labour will always need its activists who go door knocking whatever the weather. Members, both individuals and those from our affiliated organisations, are Labour's most precious resource. Our interim recommendations should be seen against the background of rising and wasteful election spending on billboard advertising, and remote professional canvassing. That is why all year round election spending limits are essential. This would create a level playing field between the main political parties for the first time in British political history.As a member of the Labour Party’s National Executive Committee, I know we have it within our power to reinvigorate Labour and remake our Party structures with members at the centre and accountability re-established. People join the Labour Party to change the world and make our society a better place for us all to live in. I hope our Interim Report will provide fresh hope to Labour Party members throughout Britain. Our recommendations show how renewal is possible, and that under new leadership it must be achieved by a genuine dialogue.

May 2007

The full report is available here.

Labour, Ken Livingstone and elected mayors: abolish....

For the avoidance of confusion, It's elected mayors, I'm after. Ken, or his proxies, at Labour Party Head Office, have just sent an eMail to CLP secretaries extending thanks to all involved in the campaign just ended. There are lessons to be learned. 

Why is Labour tolerating elected mayors in the first place?

Why is it allowing elected Labour representatives in public governmental office more than two terms?

I replied to Ken:

I can only speak in a personal capacity:

Labour should legislate to end all Mayoral positions

You sd hv called it a day after two terms.

The greatest service you can do your party is promote democratic socialism for the 21st century.

First test: speak out for open, transparent policy making and against the Peter (Black Hole) Hain method of consultation. 

Yours in hope of 'sinners' repenting.

 

Peter (Black Hole) Hain sets out Partnership into Power timetable

Patrick Moore's 700th Sky at Night is being (re)screened on BBC Four. All that talk of black holes couldn't help reminding me of Peter Hain MP, Chair of the National Policy Forum. Earlier today I , along with every other e-literate Labour Party member, received an invitation from the man himself. Peter, that is, not Patrick. Patrick is interested in informing, enlightening and enthusing. I'm not convinced we can say the same about Peter.

Peter's eMail asserts:

...Labour is changing to ensure that we can deliver fairness, even in tough times, by making different choices and tackling the vested interests that hold Britain back. The documents look at some key areas where Labour is setting out a new approach – and we want to hear your views.

Your ideas and comments will feed into our policy making process, Partnership into Power, helping to shape our manifesto for the next election. Everything we hear will shape discussions in our policy commissions and at a summer meeting of the National Policy Forum – before the documents go to Annual Conference..... 

Peter is offering exactly the same format for responding that has left members with no confidence in Partnership in(to) Power, and me personally with no confidence in Peter Hain.

One clue is in the format. We submit, but can't see any other submission, can't enter into debate, and consequently can't be sure that what emerges from the consultation process bears any relationship to the submissions.

Secondly, consider the timetable:

We’d like as many submissions as possible by Friday 8 June. Submissions which reach us by this date will help to inform discussions at the National Policy Forum meeting on 16-17 June. Submissions received after this date will still be considered – with those received by the end of June informing policy commission when documents are redrafted ahead of Annual Conference.

My own CLP's branches that are meeting monthly have already either met or issued agendas in the May cycle. The deadline is before any branch will meet in June. In short, it is impossible at such short notice to organise any meaningful discussion across the range of policy issues set out in the six policy consultation documents issued tonight, in the time allowed by Peter Hain. 

I have already called for the NEC to propose and vote for a motion of confidence in Peter here. (Ditto NEC constituency section wannabes.) In the light of his letter to e-literate members, do you need any further convincing? 

 

Has Len Duvall offered to resign as GLA Labour Group leader, if not, why not?

While the king/queen makers of London politics go about buffing up their egos talent spotting for 2016, there is a not insignificant question about the Leadership of the Greater London Assembly Labour Party group.

Jon Worth, writing on Labour List earlier today states: Labour needs a new leader for London to take the attack to Boris http://bit.ly/J96a7K

I replied:

You pose a highly pertinent question. 

But unless I am mistaken (a frequent occurrence, but, hey) there will be an election for leader of the GLA Labour Group? Maybe it has already taken place? If that election has not been framed in the context of who best to hold the Tory mayor to account and position Labour to win in 2016 (unless Labour is minded to abolish elected mayors) then the London Labour Party board needs to get busy.

The leadership you seek can only come from among our 12 Labour representatives elected last Thursday. You cite three potential candidates, Len Duvall, Val Shawcross, and Jennette Arnold. Maybe there are others from among the new intake.

Effectively governance of the process is not helped by the chair of the London Labour Party board being none other than Len Duvall. Such blatant conflicts of interest have to legislated out of order by Conference. In the meantime a pragmatic view will have to prevail. Len must stand down as GLA Labour Group leader and allow a contested election to take place.

I hope Len does the decent thing and steps down as Group Leader, declares a conflict of interest as Chair of the London Labour Party board, and allows a proper contest to take place.

Gloves off, time for a no confidence vote in Peter Hain

Why Peter Hain?

For a fuller explanation, please refer to my article, Labour - a lost cause?  in the latest edition of Chartist - the bimonthly for democratic socialism. The piece was written two weeks before the May elections, and I admit I under-estimated the capacity of the Scottish Labour Party to grasp victory from the jaws of defeat. But that should not detract from the thrust of my thesis about the danger to Labour of professional politicians, whom Peter Hain epitomises.

I concluded:  

While the Labour Party continues to be dominated by the salaried and aspiring political class, its ability to 'reconnect' will be compromised... I'll be voting for any NEC or NPF candidate willing to move an NEC vote of no confidence against Peter Hain, and/or run a campaign to rebuild paid membership electoral ward by electoral ward, and give members an effective say in policy making.

With the benefit of hindsight, I should have gone back to his pamphlet, The Future Party, published by the trade union funded think-tank Catalyst in 2004, and done a proper demolition job.

For a more recent account of Peter's Refounding success, check out his interview last month in The Australian:  Brotherly advice: reform or die 

Last year, Hain authored a 10,000 word report, Refounding Labour, for Labour leader Ed Miliband that canvassed systemic reforms to revitalise the party in a changing political world.

When you have finished spluttering into your cup of Horlicks, you will be aware that the Labour Party is far too polite to allow a motion of no confidence in any of the 'self-select'. But if anyone is any doubt about whether Peter Hain should go or not check out the next set of Partnership in Power policy documents and arrangements for the National Policy Forum in Birmingham in June.