Peter Kenyon

Selection in the spotlight: Leyton and Wanstead

The deadline for applications for the last remaining constituency in London without a prospective parliamentary candidate (as of today) Leyton and Wanstead passed at midnight Monday 8 February. No official announcement has been made about who the three members of the National Executive Committee's special selections panel (SSP) will be. They will interview and shortlist on Thursday 11 February.

What I can tell you is that Ann Black, chair of the NEC and a CLP representative will not be one of the three. What I can't tell you is why not.

Of particular interest still are:

1. the total number of applicants

2. the method of reducing many applications to a managable longlist and by whom

3. the membership of the shortlisting panel.

4. the method(s) proposed to reduce the longlist to a shortlist for an all-member postal ballot other than interview

Needless to say, my suggestions for offering local members maximum involvement in those processes set out here have been studiously ignored, an initial offer from the London Regional Director, Ken Clark to CLP chair, Greg Eglin to ensure the CLP could observe the interviewing and shortlisting had to withdrawn due to an extraordinarily short-sighted decision by the SSP to EXCLUDE CLP observers. Among those voting against was CLP representative Ellie Reeves.

UPDATE 2325: London Region Director Ken Clark rang me earlier this evening to ask for a correction concerning the offer to ensure the CLP could observe the interviewing and shortlisting to which I have agreed. Ken said tonight no such offer was made.

All I can say is that during the NEC meeting on 26 January I received the following message from a L&W contact who wrote:

Greg has confirmed Regions commitment to this and advised that he intends to write

The NEC decision was apparently in the light of the bruising experience of allowing the then CLP chair from Norwich North to witness the star-chamber proceedings against former Labour MP Dr Ian Gibson. After which it was alleged that an unauthorised account was given by the former chair. The underlying problem in that case, tragically, is that to this day no one knows what the charge was against the hapless Ian Gibson. Such miscarriages of justice are not easily forgotten by members who have seen what few rights they have in the Labour Party stripped away.

If Labour Party NEC members and staff cannot agree a coherent message about what was decided in a meeting, one has to ask what are the chances of formulating coherent and convincing messages to the electorate to vote Labour in the forthcoming General Election?

Some Leyton and Wanstead members and branches have already submitted suggestions as to whom they would like to see on the shortlist. Others have decided to wait and see before commenting.

What is certain is that this remains a selection in the spotlight.

Active Labour parties yield local council results

Further evidence of the bedrock of the Labour Party can be seen in yesterday's local council by-election results.

RESULTS:

Blackburn with Darwen Borough - Queens Park: Lab 638, Lib Dem 366, C 174. (May 2008 - Lab 756, Lib Dem 722). Lab gain from Ind. Swing 10.3% Lib Dem to Lab.

Newcastle-under-Lyme Borough - Newchapel: C 208, Ukip 148, Lab 138, Lib Dem 127. (May 2008 - C 416, Lab 220, Lib Dem 180, Ukip 127). C hold. Swing 10.4% C to Ukip.

North East Derbyshire District - Holmewood and Heath: Lab 373, C 209. (May 2007 - Lab unopposed; April 1O 2008 by-election - Lib Dem 382, Lab 356, C 165). Lab gain from Lib Dem.

Tandridge District - Whyteleafe: Lib Dem 444, C 236, Ukip 99. (May 2008 - C 526, Lib Dem 407, Lab 45). Lib Dem hold. Swing 19.4% C to Lib Dem.

Labour Party staff - exceeding authority

Ever since I became a Labour Party explorer the bush telegraph has resounded with allegations. Today, I was telephoned by Ken Clark, London Labour Party Regional Director to confirm that one of his regional officers had issued incorrect instructions to a group of CLPs instructing them to postpose their AGMs. I thanked him for putting the record straight. What better way of making the case for AGMs at the regular time? I reflected on this here.

The temptation for anyone in a position of power is to hang on. Of course, that will not be the case with Gordon Brown. He will be going to the country on 6 May, rather than hang on until 5 June. But for party unit officials in obscure places like, to name a couple of examples, say, Barking or Stoke, who ought to face re-election in February, it would be so convenient to have their AGMs postponed.

Key message to CLP secretaries - how are we going to motivate members to come out and campaign, if we don't ensure that they have a say?

More insinuations, and innuendo sprinkled with the occasional fact can be read here.

Labour Party branch challenge - AGM time

My wife and I got to bed in the wee hours this morning following the City of London Labour Party 2010 AGM and monthly Fundraising supper.

We had an AGM with a written Annual Report (partial) and Accounts (unaudited). We elected a chair, vice-chair, secretary (me), treasurer, campaigns officer, youth officer and membership secretary (me), plus four GC delegates with a vacancy that will be filled before the CLP AGM

There was a full and free debate about Labour's electoral propects and how we are going to campaign. Our newest member has only been in the Party a week! S/he was not press-ganged into taking on any elected position at his/her first branch meeting.

BTW the supper raised £90, and will go a significant way to offsetting our loss of £129.59 in our local election year 2009, when we spent around £2,500 taking on the City establishment.

My pals in Charlton Labour Party across the Thames in Greenwich tell me they had 23 members attend out of 95 at their AGM the previous night. The position of chair was hotly contested and went to a second ballot after a tied vote. Save the Labour Party Secretary, Mark James, was elected chair 11:9 on the second ballot.

Labour Party NEC Officers meanwhile decided that party units could defer AGMs until after the General Election. I shall be be registering my objections to this major lapse of good governance at the next NEC meeting on 26 January. But coincidentally, NEC Officers advice has been misinterpreted by Party staff in at least one region. Party units there have been instructed NOT to hold AGMs. I have demanded an immediate retraction.

How else can party members hold their colleagues exercising delegated authority to account? How else can they be satisfied that income and expenditure has been handled honestly? Of course, such trifling matters are not of much concern at Labour Party HQ.

Labour Party reconnecting... closing ranks - united to win!

City of London Labour Party - a local branch - is going ahead with its AGM next week. This is despite a message from Head Office just before Christmas allowing such meetings to be suspended until after the General Election on the pretext of enabling more campaigning. That illustrates the gulf between Labour Party head office and rank-and-file members more familiar with everyday life. The real world in which the vast majority of us live is very demanding as far as accountability and governance are concerned. That is in sharp contrast to the Political Class - Labour Party branch as was illustrated vividly yesterday by the snowflake plotters.

So an Annual Report and Accounts are in production. Nominations are being sought for Branch offices. Participation is being encouraged with personal telephone calls. Then there are the reality checks. A survey has been designed by Save the Labour Party (STLP) to gauge Labour Party member opinion towards involvement in the 2010 General Election campaign.The local branch chair and vice-chair have agreed it should be circulated to all members. The thrust of the five questions follows the conclusions of the LabOUR Commission interim report in 2007 - that members expect a say in policy making.

With an election only a few months away is it too late, or could this be part of an election strategy that enables the Labour movement to feel involved, close ranks and reach out to the electorate to secure an overall majority in the next Parliament?

Labour Party council seat wins from Tories, Lib-Dems and BNP

What are the stories behind this crop of excellent results for Labour Party candidates posted on Labour Matters?

Labour Party election strategies would do well to explore the details of local campaigning for General Election lessons.

I suggested to Labour Party leader Prime Minister Gordon Brown at the last National Executive Committee meeting that he got a briefing from the General Secretary on how many wards based on electoral boundaries (c. 10,000 voters) still have active Labour Party branches.

An active branch in every electoral ward should be a central party objective if we want to re-establish Labour as the party of government.

Labour's NEC - a broken reed?

Today, the Guardian published a letter I wrote last week in response to a Comment piece on the Labour Party by Simon Jenkins in which among other things Jenkins described its National Executive Committee as 'a broken reed'. 

I challenged his analysis, writing:

The Labour party's shortcomings are governance failures. Just like those that took Britain to war in Iraq, and led to the near collapse of the banking system and the MPs' allowances scandal. The result has been alien policies, membership and local council representation cut by over 50%, and massive debts.

Save the Labour Party's call for an extra NEC meeting has been rejected by the powers that the on the grounds that it was not possible to arrange. That's a problem with a body that only meets every two months and is never given any meaningful management information either about its finances, membership or organisational capacity. What's the point?

I'm still waiting for confirmation that the Statement of Accounts for 2008 has been sent to the Electoral Commission, and that it will also be sent to members this month for consideration at July meetings. I hope that our Auditors have given an unqualified opinion as to the state of the Party's finances. But it can only be a hope, as I have never seen any information as a member of the NEC that would assure me that they will. With affiliated trade unions, the Party's financial mainstay, threatening to reduce funding or in extreme cases, such as the Communications Workers' Union, disaffiliate, there must be questions about going-concern. Yesterday's announcement by m'Lord Mandleson cancelling the part-privatisation of the Post Office at least removes one potential threat to the Labour Party's finances, for the time being. In any normal organisation, the NEC would have had an opportunity to consider the draft accounts with the Auditor present. My request for such a meeting before 30 June has been ignored.

Underlying these concerns, which I will readily admit are a minority interest, are worries that 'the powers that be' in the Labour Party think they are law unto themselves, just like Members of Parliament, and bankers. It is time this view was challenged more loudly, and very publicly, if 'the powers that be' hope to win back the trust of party members and the electorate.

Labour Party cites pending changes in law for bank account ruling

If I were the chief executive of either the Co-operative or Unity Trust Bank, I'm not sure I would appreciate reasons currently being advanced by the Labour Party to justify an instruction to its branches, constituency parties and other units to bank exclusively with these two institutions. Some 70% of the bodies involved already do. So what's the problem?

It is claimed in a letter to those involved that changes in regulations arising from the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 and those proposed in the Political Parties and Elections Bill currently before Parliament justify the instruction. I have been refused a copy of the internal NEC Business Board report so I feel free to pose questions publicly.

The reason advanced is the standardisation of accounts. I've been a branch and CLP Treasurer since the PPERA 2000 came into force and I can't remember any occasion needing help from the Co-op bank compiling accounts, or being offered such a service, if I needed one. So I asked HO if they could supply examples.

The only ones cited were questions regarding access to accounts where signatories have moved away, died or are in dispute with the local party.

This looks as though HO is paving the way for imposing a centralised treasury/banking function on the dwindling membership - and driving another nail in the coffin of a mass-membership party. Or is that a non-sequitur, just like the reason advanced by the powers that be for compulsory banking with the Coop and UTB?

Memo to Co-op and UTB, don't claim you weren't warned.

Tribune reports Labour Leader ambitions to reform party

This week's Tribune carries a report about the Labour Party leader, Gordon Brown's apparent ambitions to reform the Labour Party. If only. For those of us who spent two years' worth of voluntary time immediately after the last election researching opinion among members and former members, such a move can't come soon enough if we are going to have a cat in hell's chance of winning the next British General Election.

The results we published as the LabOUR Commission Interim Report. There are problems currently with the links following the transfer of the host for its website, which we hope to rectify very soon.

In the meantime, I hope every CLP/branch/affiliate will take a few moments to remind the leadership that to rebuild the Labour Party it has to be seen as ethical, solvent, democratically-run and aiming for mass membership.

The problem with any Labour Party review of its internal structures or its policies is whether the Leadership takes any notice.

I am quoted in the Tribune article as saying:

“It has to be open and transparent and give proper weight to views decided at collective levels within the party. This is an opportunity to revisit some important issues and we don’t want party members’ views disappearing into a black hole.”

I will have an opportunity to make representations on Tuesday at the next meeting of the Labour Party's National Executive Committee.

Was Brown bonkers to bail out the bankers?

It's two weeks since I last blogged. My only excuse is fighting an election campaign. Not your usual Town Hall tussle. This is the Labour eight against the Guildhall (club, line and sinker). You can read about it here. Barring unforeseen hitches, we will be fielding eight candidates in six wards enabling over 50% of the total electorate of 21,332 to choose who represents them in a contested election. Tomorrow is just the deadline for nominations. If there are contests (as we hope) in at least the six wards (out of 25) in which we are standing, then voting for 41 out of 100 seats on Common Council will take place on Monday 16 March. Among the hot topics are the state of social housing and was Brown bonkers to bail out the bankers? On the latter subject (sort of) I was quoted in the Guardian here. It read as though I was blaming Common Council for the recession, triggered as it was by systemic banking failures. I was simply trying to draw attention to the dual role played by leading City figures who act as ambassadors for London as a world financial centre, and also run the local authority known as the City of London on behalf of local residents and businesses. 

Our Manifesto says:

Mismanagement of financial institutions has put people’s savings at risk. Labour members of Common Council would maintain a proper balance between the interests of residents and developers.

In short, we don't think our Prime Minister was bonkers to bail out the bankers. We hope our modest campaign will give the wider electorate an opportunity to appreciate the far greater catastrophe in terms of lost savings, pensions and jobs that would have followed if Brown had not been decisive and intervened back in October last year.