Peter Kenyon

Political party funding - lost in Refounding Labour fog?

Why have Labour Party's fixers delayed revealing their latest thinking on Refounding Labour until the eve of Annual Conference 2011? Why did stories appear at the beginning of the August silly season about Ed Miliband taking on the trade unions' hold over Labour?  Could this conceiveable have anything to do with the funding of political parties?

My curiosity has been aroused by revelations about a plan to change the formulae for handing Labour Party membership subscriptions. Details were first revealed by Ann Black, doyen of constituency representatives on the party's National Executive Committee, in an eMail to her contacts, subsequently published on Labour List and the newly formed Labour Democratic Network websites.

It is proposed that first, all national [sic] debts incurred up to 2010 would be written off, so that every CLP would start with a clean slate. Second, a higher proportion of membership income would be retained centrally.

As set out these financial proposals risk provoking a knee-jerk reaction. Any proposals allowing Head Office more control are like the proverbial red rag to a bull. I'll confess that was my first reaction. But researching my piece for the latest edition of Chartist (due out next weekend) I entered a Google search with the words: 'Chartist Hayden Phillips'. I have tried to keep my finger on the issue of political party funding since 2003. There is a partial chronicle on this blog here.

Of particular relevance today is the expected publication of the latest official inquiry immediately after this year's political party Conference season in October. I'm not sure that is well founded as authors of official inquiries prefer to appeal to a political consensus. This one has been conducted by Sir Christopher Kelly and his Committee on Standards in Public Life. We know the LibDems want to raid the public purse. We know the Tories want to wreck the affililated TU link with the Labour Party. We know the Blairites went to astonishing lengths to follow the Tory-agenda. Judging by the silly season headlines, they are still at what they do best: being Tories.

So what should the position of rank-and-file Labour Party members be? Can we afford a principled position about our Party and its finances? Can we help our leader find a considered position? More importantly, can that be achieved in time for a crucial pre-Conference NEC on 20 September? 

Ann Black and Ellie Reeves, another CLP representative on the NEC are right to flag up the Head Office financial proposals. Our job is to advance the case for a comprehensive rebuilding strategy to emerge from the Refounding Labour consultation, of which reforming the way in which membership subscriptions are distributed should form part.

We need our Leader to use the opportunity of Conference to remind everyone that he believes in a mass-membership Labour Party. To change the public perception of political party, membership has to be starting point. Poignantly, this weekend's media has been strewn with revelations of a new Labour strategy for challenging the Tories starts with casting their leader, David Cameron, as an old Tory. Ed Miliband should beware of being cast as another old 'top-down' Labour leader battling it out with the Trades Unions.

Labour should set itself a goal of financial independence from the state if it is win back people's trust as a party of government. That really would give Refounding Labour meaning.

 

Labour headed for opposition today?

'Vote Clegg, get Cameron' was the warning to voters ahead of last week's election. Latest developments with the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats back in talks point to a Con/Lib-Dem coalition, possibly being announced before the end of the day. Talking to trade union contacts over the past few days, I have sensed a real desire to keep the Conservatives out of government. When the Labour National executive Committee (NEC) meets later today, I will listen keenly to accounts of talks between the Prime Minister's emissaries and the Liberal-Democrats. The BBC's Chief Political Correspondent Laura Kuenssberg has just reported that Schools Secretary, Ed Balls, may have pushed the Lib-Dems too hard and into the Tories hands. Whatever, the truth of that it would be tragic if the possibility of protecting the country from conservativism were lost. The parliamentary arithmetic could have delivered a traffic light coalition, just. If there is still scope for considered negotiation, my inclination will be to give Lab-Lib talks another chance, with a negotiating team committed to success.

#askthePPCs for Kirkcaldy & Cowdenbeath, Sheffield Hallam and Witney

Amid all the ceremony for tonight's TV debates, I'll wager than none of the participants will be introduced for what they are - prospective parliamentary candidates for their respective political parties, (in a constituency comprising less than 100,000 electors). Those lucky few are the only people who will get to vote for one of these three people on 6 May 2010 - not the UK's 40 million plus electorate.

Pound to a penny, there will be no 'health' warning for the hapless viewing public stating: Polite Notice - UK Prime Ministers are appointed NOT elected. The sub-text could elaborate: Unless you are registered to vote in a UK general election in Kirkcaldy & Cowdenbeath, Sheffield Hallam or Witney - you will NOT be able to vote for or against any one of these three individuals. 

None of them are MPs at the moment. The Prime Minister remains the Prime Minister. I'm not sure about the Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition. As for the Liberal-Democrats, they must be laughing all the way to the ballot box.

It's all part of the onward march of the political class. The TV debates, are seductively billed as prime ministerial debates. All three participants, Gordon Brown, David Cameron and Nick Clegg are lining up to deceive the public. Unless one of them has the courage to tear up the script and confess. "Viewers - you will not be electing a new prime minister on 6 May, you will be electing a new member of parliament."

"Just so there is no confusion, my party members elected me as their Leader, tonight we are debating the policies my party is proposing .......I'm one of a team - not a team of one.....I'm asking you to vote for the candidate my party has selected to stand in your constituency. If you, the electorate vote my party a majority in the House, we will be able to form the next government. If I succeed in that task, I hope my party will endorse me as its Leader. I will be submitting myself to annual re-election as Leader during the course of the next Parliament. So if you want to keep me on my toes, join my party now and take part in our annual leadership election."

For all the regulation of broadcasting, political parties, advertising, plus the public money poured into citizenship education, that simple proposition - "we don't elect prime ministers" will not even get a mention. As for the use of 'I' , if I can bear to stay the course, I'll be counting.

TV debates: why not apply The Spirit Level to our political leaders?

Last night I went to hear Richard Wilkinson (again) talk about The Spirit Level, the book he co-authored with Kate Pickett, which has just been published in paperback. He was the guest of the Newham Fabians. The previous night the BBC staged a discussion about the proposed TV debates between the three political leaders ahead of the general election. It occurred to me how much public understanding about inequality and its causes and consequences might improve if the BBC, if not ITV and Sky, were to abandon their current plans and offer Professor Wilkinson and his co-author the opportunity to apply The Spirit Level to Messrs Brown Cameron and Clegg, separately. I asked Professor Wilkinson, before he left, whether he would appreciate the opportunity. After a moment's reflection, he said: "Yes, I'd like that." I would too. I suspect the viewing public would as well. If nothing else it would raise, rather than demean, the level of public debate ahead of the General Election.

Tory beggar my neighbour policy: Vote Labour

You heard it from the man himself, David (begger my neighbour) Cameron. The response is obviousl. Vote Labour.

Election campaigning: Billboards

The Labour Party obviously has some friends left, even in the Murdoch press. This cartoon in today's Times highlights the potential folly of billboard campaiging in British General Elections. If this is an example of how the Conservatives are going to outspend Labour..go CCO..keep up the good work.

Duffing up Cameron in the Commons is not inclusive politics

Today the Labour Party's executive body responsible for policy, the Joint Policy Commission (of which I am not a member) meets to finalise plans for the General Election manifesto.

I have submitted my suggestions:

Prime objective:

Restoring confidence in Labour's policy-making process 'Partnership in Power' with members and the electorate. We have to be seen getting out there and listening.

Steps to that goal:

Encourage each of the Policy Commission's to meet in January to undertake 'reality checks' with government represented at Cabinet level (possibly using opinion leaders on the most sensitive issues to test our ability to get key election messages across or reformulate to make sure we do)

Timetable steps

1.a NPF linked to the planned Labour local government event 27 February (?) to consider the results of

2. an open and transparent consultation with party members to flush out key issues to help us get re-elected based on 'The choice for Britain' and Policy Commission 'reality checks'. NB. We have a volunteer pool of expertise capable of processing all this waiting to be mobilised. We just have learn to be confident and have trust

3. Key issues should be voted on by the NPF

4. A ballot of members should follow to prioritise and/or choose between short-listed options agreed by the NPF

5. A Clause 5 meeting should agree the manifesto after an election is called as per Rule.

Justification:

We have everything to gain and nothing to lose by being inclusive, open and transparent. (BTW this is not a rerun of 1983!) It's about winning back hearts and minds to Labour. We can only do that by proving to our members and the electorate we are listening.

There is a salutory reminder of why duffing up Cameron in the Commons is not enough and potentially counter-productive in the Spectators Coffee Shop piece here. Having won back public sympathy after the Sun lost it over GB's letter to a fallen soldier's Mother, we don't want to lose it by being seen to bully the rich and their representatives. They didn't choose to go to Eton. They were just born(e) to it.

Cameron falters: Tory blogger

Don't take my word for it. Just check it out here. Though I take some satisfaction for posting this a couple of days ago.

Labour's future: power, party or pals?

It's tough at the top. This is an occasion when the prospect of Gordon Brown and the Labour Party retaining power has to be weighed on the opposite side of the scales to tribalism, ideology and pals.

Reviewing the events of Gordon Brown's premiership, there are his expressions of vision. And there are the realities. Extending and Renewing party democracy announced the day he was named Leader. But up pops the machine and forces through more central control. The Governance of Britain promised constitutional reform. But up popped the naysays to restrain progress. So today with Cameron out on the front foot again,  could sleaze finally liberate Gordon?  Will that moral compass point in the right direction and courage prevail? Is it the end for MPs that resisted reform of expenses, New Labour mantras and his 'pals' in government that have disgraced the Labour Party with their wanton greed?

Cameron laid bare

An image for the era? If there is a prize for the cartoon worth more than a thousand words, this must be a strong contender.

But was it drawn before the duck-pond story quacked broke?